This site uses cookies to deliver our services and to show you relevant ads and presentations. By clicking on "Accept", you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Use.
X

Download Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications PowerPoint Presentation


Login   OR  Register
X


Iframe embed code :



Presentation url :

X

Description :

Available Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications powerpoint presentation for free download which is uploaded by steve an active user in belonging ppt presentation Science & Technology category.

Tags :

Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications

Home / Science & Technology / Science & Technology Presentations / Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications PowerPoint Presentation

Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications PowerPoint Presentation

Ppt Presentation Embed Code   Zoom Ppt Presentation

About This Presentation


Description : Available Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications powerpoint presentation for free download whi... Read More

Tags : Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications

Published on : Aug 07, 2014
Views : 258 | Downloads : 0


Download Now

Share on Social Media

             

PowerPoint is the world's most popular presentation software; you can create professional Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications powerpoint presentation with this powerful software easly. And give your presentation on Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications in conference, a school lecture, a business proposal or in webinar.

Uploader spend their valuable time to create this Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications powerpoint presentation slides, to share their knowledgable content with the world. This ppt presentation uploaded by worldwideweb in their relavent Science & Technology category is available for free download and use according to your industries likefinance,marketing,education,health and many more.

SlidesFinder.com provides a platform for marketers, presenters and educationists along with being the preferred search engine for professional PowerPoint presentations on the Internet to upload your Nanotechnology-Applications and Implications ppt presentation slides to BUILD YOUR CROWD!!

User Presentation
Related Presentation
Free PowerPoint Templates
Slide 1 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center
Slide 2 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2
Slide 3 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3
Slide 4 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4
Slide 5 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5
Slide 6 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6
Slide 7 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7
Slide 8 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8
Slide 9 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9
Slide 10 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10
Slide 11 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11
Slide 12 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12
Slide 13 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13
Slide 14 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14
Slide 15 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15
Slide 16 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16
Slide 17 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17
Slide 18 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18
Slide 19 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19
Slide 20 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20
Slide 21 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21
Slide 22 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22
Slide 23 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23
Slide 24 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24
Slide 25 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25
Slide 26 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26
Slide 27 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27
Slide 28 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28
Slide 29 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29
Slide 30 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30
Slide 31 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31
Slide 32 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32
Slide 33 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33
Slide 34 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34
Slide 35 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35
Slide 36 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36
Slide 37 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37
Slide 38 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38
Slide 39 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39
Slide 40 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40
Slide 41 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41
Slide 42 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42
Slide 43 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43
Slide 44 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44
Slide 45 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45
Slide 46 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46
Slide 47 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47
Slide 48 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48
Slide 49 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48 Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks Key Science Question What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks? 49
Slide 50 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48 Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks Key Science Question What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks? 49 Risk Mitigation – Anticipated Results An evaluation of the efficacy of existing pollution control approaches and technologies to manage releases of engineered nanomaterials to all media during their production. ORD will collaborate with industry and academia to report on opportunities to reduce the environmental implications of nanomaterial production by employing greener synthesis approaches ORD will identify design production processes that are sustainable, minimize or eliminate any emissions/releases, and reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing of nanomaterials and products ORD will report on the viability and performance on the use of nanotechnology for the abatement and remediation of conventional toxic pollution. 50
Slide 51 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48 Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks Key Science Question What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks? 49 Risk Mitigation – Anticipated Results An evaluation of the efficacy of existing pollution control approaches and technologies to manage releases of engineered nanomaterials to all media during their production. ORD will collaborate with industry and academia to report on opportunities to reduce the environmental implications of nanomaterial production by employing greener synthesis approaches ORD will identify design production processes that are sustainable, minimize or eliminate any emissions/releases, and reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing of nanomaterials and products ORD will report on the viability and performance on the use of nanotechnology for the abatement and remediation of conventional toxic pollution. 50 Anticipated Outcomes and Next Steps Focused research projects to address risk assessment and management needs for nanomaterials in support of the various environmental statues for which the EPA is responsible Currently undergoing Agency-wide review Planned Federal agency (NSET) review External peer review – December 2007 51
Slide 52 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48 Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks Key Science Question What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks? 49 Risk Mitigation – Anticipated Results An evaluation of the efficacy of existing pollution control approaches and technologies to manage releases of engineered nanomaterials to all media during their production. ORD will collaborate with industry and academia to report on opportunities to reduce the environmental implications of nanomaterial production by employing greener synthesis approaches ORD will identify design production processes that are sustainable, minimize or eliminate any emissions/releases, and reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing of nanomaterials and products ORD will report on the viability and performance on the use of nanotechnology for the abatement and remediation of conventional toxic pollution. 50 Anticipated Outcomes and Next Steps Focused research projects to address risk assessment and management needs for nanomaterials in support of the various environmental statues for which the EPA is responsible Currently undergoing Agency-wide review Planned Federal agency (NSET) review External peer review – December 2007 51 Writing Team Nora Savage, Co-Lead Randy Wentsel, Co-lead Michele Aston, NERL Douglas Mckinney, NRMRL J. Michael Davis, NCEA Jeff Morris, OSP Steve Diamond, NHEERL Dave Mount, NHEERL Kevin Dreher, NHEERL Carlos Nunez, NRMRL Maureen Gwinn, NHEERL Chon Shoaf, NCEA Thomas Holdsworth, NRMRL Barb Walton, NHEERL Keith Houck, NCCT Eric Weber, NERL Elaine Hubal, NCCT 52
Slide 53 - Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning Session 9: November 8, 2007 “Looking Forward: Nanotechnology and Superfund” Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy Randy Wentsel National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA Where Does the Nano Go? David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Center Product Use and Diversity Government Collaborations Funding Allocation Research Approaches EPA STAR NTP NIEHS Grantees Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications Session 1: January 18, 2007 “Introduction to Nanotechnology” Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP RISKeLearning Advantages to Nanotechnology: New properties Enable greater efficiency Nano-enabled consumer products Walker 2 Session 2: February 13, 2007 “Metal Remediation” Mason Tomson, Rice University Shas Mattigod, PNNL Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 3: March 15, 2007 “DNAPL Remediation” Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc. Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University Groundwater Remediation Drinking Water TCE, CT DNAPLs Mattigod SAMMS Nano Magnetite NZVI, EZVI As, Cr, Hg Actinides Lowry 3 Session 4: April 19, 2007 “Superfund Site Remediation” Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5 Nanotechnology: Applications RISKeLearning Session 5: May 31, 2007 “Environmental Sensors” Paul Gilman, ORCAS Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis Groundwater and Soil Remediation TCE TCA DNAPLs PCE NZVI EZVI BNP Wearable Real-Time Qualitative Quantifiable Dog-on-a-Chip Exposure Monitors Environ. Detectors DNA Assay Gilman, Stubbs Logan 4 Environment Session 6: August 16, 2007 “Fate and Transport” Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Nanoparticles NOM complexation filtration Westerhoff Natural Organic Matter Sediments NP (NP)x UV sorption aggregation 5 Session 7: September 12, 2007 “Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment” Kevin Dreher, US EPA Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University Stephen Roberts, University of Florida Nanotechnology: Implications RISKeLearning Session 8: October 18, 2007 “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology” Stephen Klaine, Clemson University Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours Klaine Larkin Unique “Nano-ness” could mean unique toxicities relative to bulk materials. Kane 6 Challenges Diversity of products, rapidly evolving Variability Quality Control Characterization Environmental interactions, which ones are critical? Opportunities Applications Collaborations Funding Future Directions Policy: David Rejeski Research: Randy Wentsel Discussion: Audience!! Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund RISKeLearning 7 EPA Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD) CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD) SBRP/NIEHS Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk MDB, NIEHS-Contractor Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson Nanotechnology: Planning Committee RISKeLearning THANKS! 8 Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Strategies for Nanotechnologies David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Washington, DC 9 Some History 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal. 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks. 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health. 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers. 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites. Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990). 10 Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues? Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream No law deals specifically with nanotechnology 11 Nano Products in the Waste Stream Disposable (Use for Less Than 1 Year) Short-Term Durable (Use for 1-5 Years) Long-Term Durable (Use for Over 5 Years) Consumable (Does Not Enter Waste Stream Directly) Over 5 Years Less Than 1 Year 1-5 Years Indirectly Enters Waste Stream 12 Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research. Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices 13 The Case of Carbon Nanotubes 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes globally. Production concentrated in the U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and China. 108 metric tons produced in year 2004 >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005. Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors. 14 Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process. 15 Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. ? Amount of nano waste Complexity of nano waste 16 CAA = Clean Air Act CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CWA = Clean Water Act FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211. Extraction & Processing Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use End-of-Life Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Regulations Across the Life Cycle 17 THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604 Environmental Defense (with DuPont) http://www.nanoriskframework.org NGO Activities NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183 Protest at Molecular Foundry opening, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport 18 Public Perception Concerns “We’re gonna be killed or cured.” “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?” “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?” “Are there labels?” “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?” “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.” “What is going to be the long-term effect? Extraction Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July. 19 Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies 20 Key objectives: Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites; Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances. Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively. CERCLA 21 Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)? Is there a release or substantial threat of release? Is the release from a facility? Is the release into the environment? Four Key Questions Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials? 22 Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including: - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and - covers federal facilities. Statutory liability approach could: - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances; - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability Manufacture of Nanomaterial Use Disposal Distribution / Transport Manufacture of Nanoproduct Distribution / Transport Liability Impact (psychological) 23 Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials. Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances. Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes. Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development. Conclusions 24 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ???? 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0 CAS Number Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR–235] Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing 25 Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems. Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications. Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact. Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides 26 Convened in October 2006 by: The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Involved international LCA and nano experts Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology Nano LCA Key Conclusions: Use a case-study approach Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway). Be modest and open about uncertainties. Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility. Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s. Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes. Promote best practices and successes. 27 For More Information www.nanotechproject.org David Rejeski Phone: (202) 691-4255 Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org 28 Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) 29 OUTLINE Briefing Purpose Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS) Background Rationale Key Themes and Questions Anticipated results Path Forward – Next Steps Writing Team 30 Briefing Purpose Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI) Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products 31 Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions Purpose of Strategy 32 Rationale Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006) EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007) http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Nanotechnology White Paper Office of the Science Advisor Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf 33 National Collaboration Activities Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF Research project collaborations with NTP National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore 34 International Collaboration Activities Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5) International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation 35 Document Organization Introduction Background Research Strategy Overview Research Themes – for each science question: Background/Program Relevance Research Activities Anticipated Outcomes Implementation and Research Linkages Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans Appendix B – ORD Description 36 Life Cycle Stages Environmental Pathways Fate & Transport Exposure Effects Risk Assessment Risk Management Feedstocks Manufacture Distribution Storage Use Disposal Air Water Soil Food Air Primary contaminants Secondary contaminants Inhalation Ingestion Dermal absorption Ecosystems Health Analytical Detection Method Development Performance Indicators Modeling Economics Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Adaptation/ Revitalization/ Restoration/ Remediation Risk Characterization 37 Four Research Themes Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Preventing and Mitigating Risks 38 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure Key Science Questions (Two of Four) Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective? What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples? 39 Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment. Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts. 40 Detection – Anticipated Outcomes Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices. 41 Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials? What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials? 42 Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials. Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes. Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials. Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials. Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials 43 Exposure – Anticipated Results Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. 44 Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods Key Science Question What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted? 45 Human and Ecological Effects Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD. Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis. 46 Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies Key Science Question How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials? 47 Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop. A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08 Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments. 48 Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks Key Science Question What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks? 49 Risk Mitigation – Anticipated Results An evaluation of the efficacy of existing pollution control approaches and technologies to manage releases of engineered nanomaterials to all media during their production. ORD will collaborate with industry and academia to report on opportunities to reduce the environmental implications of nanomaterial production by employing greener synthesis approaches ORD will identify design production processes that are sustainable, minimize or eliminate any emissions/releases, and reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing of nanomaterials and products ORD will report on the viability and performance on the use of nanotechnology for the abatement and remediation of conventional toxic pollution. 50 Anticipated Outcomes and Next Steps Focused research projects to address risk assessment and management needs for nanomaterials in support of the various environmental statues for which the EPA is responsible Currently undergoing Agency-wide review Planned Federal agency (NSET) review External peer review – December 2007 51 Writing Team Nora Savage, Co-Lead Randy Wentsel, Co-lead Michele Aston, NERL Douglas Mckinney, NRMRL J. Michael Davis, NCEA Jeff Morris, OSP Steve Diamond, NHEERL Dave Mount, NHEERL Kevin Dreher, NHEERL Carlos Nunez, NRMRL Maureen Gwinn, NHEERL Chon Shoaf, NCEA Thomas Holdsworth, NRMRL Barb Walton, NHEERL Keith Houck, NCCT Eric Weber, NERL Elaine Hubal, NCCT 52 Thank You After viewing the links to additional resources, please complete our online feedback form. Thank You Links to Additional Resources Feedback Form 53