Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

EDF's recent news release that gave a less-than-glowing review to the performance of EPA's Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) engendered a critique from Michael Heintz of Porter & Wright, accusing us of being "irresponsible" and potentially "sector damaging." Our release had lamented the mediocre level of participation and lack of transparency surrounding the NMSP. I've posted a reply to Michael's post, but also want to post it here. Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

A growing number of observers of nanotechnology policy in the U.S. - at least those outside the U.S. government! - recognize that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is poorly suited both to spur the generation of sufficient information about nanomaterials, and to ensure that information indicating potential risks will trigger meaningful action.  So why not just tweak TSCA to make it work better for nano? Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

This final post in this series goes to the ultimate question, where the nanorubber really hits the road:  Can EPA regulate an “existing” nanomaterial’s production, use, or disposal under TSCA?  Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

Let's now turn to dissecting just how limited EPA’s authorities are both to collect information that companies already possess on their nanomaterials, and to require companies to generate and submit new information.  Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

This was going to be the last post in my series on the fate of nanomaterials under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), where I turn to what will likely be – at least in the near term – the most common regulatory scenario that will apply:  the extent to which EPA has authority to regulate nanomaterials as “existing” chemicals under TSCA.  But there’s so much to cover that I’ve decided to split this last topic into three separate posts.  Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5940), by a vote of 407-6.  Among other changes, the bill calls for a number of much-needed improvements in how the NNI addresses health and environmental concerns associated with nanotechnology.  See EDF’s news release issued today.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

In my last post, I decried EPA’s shortsighted decision to declare nano forms of chemicals listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory to be “existing” rather than “new” chemicals.  But I noted that EPA did not rule that all nanomaterials are existing chemicals.  EPA says it will consider buckyballs, carbon nanotubes, or anything else that has no counterpart – a substance with the same chemical structure – already on the TSCA Inventory to be “new.”  So can we rest assured that, at least for these nanomaterials, EPA has sufficient authority under TSCA to effectively identify and address their potential risks?  Would it were so.  Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

In this and my next two posts, I want to explore the question of whether EPA has sufficient authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to effectively oversee nanotechnology.  EPA (as well as the White House) maintains that the agency has ample statutory authority to do what’s needed to identify and address any potential risks nanomaterials may pose to consumers, the general public and the environment.  I beg to differ.  Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

As I noted in an earlier post, the federal government staunchly maintains that regulatory agencies’ current authorities and regulatory structures are adequate.  Yet I sense quite a bit of angst — even panic — in the agencies over how they will actually address the complexities of nanotechnology under those existing authorities and regulatory structures.

The claim that laws developed long before nanotechnology came along can nevertheless manage it flawlessly smacks of a double standard:  If there’s nothing novel here, why is the federal government investing $1.5 billion annually to develop nanotechnology? Read more »

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

It’s been a few months now since the White House took the unusual step of articulating some “Principles for Nanotechnology EH&S Oversight.” Given recent events, it’s worth again reflecting on this official memorandum, which was signed by the heads of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and sent to the heads of all federal agencies and departments.

Despite the title, it’s very hard not to read this document as one intended primarily to throw up barriers to effective oversight. Read more »