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

My last post identified two Section 8(e) "substantial risk" notices pertaining to carbon nanotubes, one submitted by BASF, the other by Arkema.  I have in my files one additional Section 8(e) notice for a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), submitted by DuPont.  With three Section 8(e) notices submitted for different rat pulmonary toxicity studies on carbon nanotubes, it's interesting to compare their results. Read more »

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

Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any company that manufactures, imports, processes or distributes chemicals in the U.S. to notify EPA within 30 days if it obtains new information that "reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment."  Are there Section 8(e) notices for nanomaterials? Read more »

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

Since my first post concerning EPA's Consent Order, I've been reflecting further on the management conditions it imposes - or, more accurately, on what conditions it doesn't impose.  The Order's only such conditions address potential worker exposure.  What about the rest of the nanomaterial's lifecycle? Read more »

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

[Part II of this post is available here.] 

Word hit the street today that EPA intends to make public a "sanitized" version of a Consent Order it has negotiated with a producer of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs).  [A link will be provided once available.]  We obtained a copy of the Order, which has redacted all information claimed confidential by the company involved.  What can we learn from this well-scrubbed Order? Read more »

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.

[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 »