Search news
Most searched tags
US Nanotechnology Regulation - an Interview with Authorities and Industries
Published: Wednesday 23 June 2010
In an interview with Skip Lockard, co-chair of Alston & Bird’s Nanotechnology practice, representatives of the US regulatory authorities and the chemical industries discuss current and future US regulation of nanotechnology.
Tom Jacob, former DuPont Manager of Government Affairs for the Western Region and currently of T.R. Jacobs & Associates, LLP, notes that ‘industry recognizes potential benefits from nano-regulation.’ ‘Regulations based on sound science and the best collective understanding of environmental, health, and safety (“EH&S”) issues is unquestionably beneficial to the reasonable, appropriately-controlled development of nanoproducts,’ he adds.
The Nanotechnology Panel of the American Chemical Counsel (ACC) agrees: ‘The ACC welcomes reasonable regulation, as opposed to uncertainty about how nanomaterials should be regulated,’ says Bill Gulledge, Managing Director of the ACC’s Chemical Products & Technology Division and Chair of its Nanotechnology Panel.
Dr. Jeff Wong, Chief Scientist at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), explains the DTSC’s Mandatory Nanomaterials Data Call-In, which started in January 2009 and went into effect on the 1st January 2010: ‘We are looking at data and trying to reach meaningful, factual, “boots on the ground” conclusions that will help companies make good decisions. In a sense, our goal is simply for these conclusions to help companies incorporate environmental protection principles through rational product design at the front end, rather than dealing with problems on the back end.’ But the American chemical industry does not support California’s initiative: ‘We’d [...] like to see a uniform national approach to nanomaterial regulation, rather than something piecemeal on a state-to-state basis.’ ‘ACC advocates the use of existing regulatory frameworks for the responsible development of nanotechnology. In particular, we’d like to see a modernization or revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) to address all chemical management issues including nano [...],’ he added. ‘In terms of future regulation, I also think it’s important to keep in mind that different nanomaterials clearly have different properties. As a result, different materials have different environmental or health implications. One broadly shared concern within the chemical industry is whether future regulations properly take these differences into account,’ cautions Tom Jacob.
So, what’s next for nanomaterial regulation in the US?
Bill Gulledge predicts that ‘EPA will continue data call-ins and other TSCA regulatory efforts for nanomaterials. [...] On the legislative front, I do think it’s just a matter of time before TSCA is amended and generally updated. There could be a significant debate about how nanomaterials should be treated under a revised version of TSCA.’
In California, DTSC doesn’t follow a strict prioritization, but will certainly remain interested in titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, as well as zero-valent iron.
'In addition to expanding the list of specific materials agencies are interested in, [...] they are starting to look further down the product value chain and ask questions not just about raw nanomaterials themselves, but what the implications might be for workers and product end-users. Looking at the entire product chain may become increasingly important,’ concludes Tom Jacob.
Follow this link to read the full interview.