Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur : Nanotechnology Law Report - Germanium nanobead image provided by UT-Battelle, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy

DuPont released a statement that it was making this submission under the NMSP  in order to support EPA's program.  Said Terry Medley, global regulatory affairs director, "We are fully supportive of the [NMSP] and believe this program will give the EPA the information that it needs to help ensure the responsible use of new nanomaterials."  In the same statement, DuPont began encouraging other companies to make similar submissions to EPA.  Light Stabilizer 210 is a titanium dioxide compound used to protect plastics from sun exposure.  The same material was used as a test case under the Nano Risk Framework.

And, speaking of the Nano Risk Framework, DuPont's partner in that effort, Environmental Defense was very critical of EPA's NMSP, as recently as January 30--two days before DuPont submitted the first data set to EPA.  Environmental Defense claims the NMSP will only delay decision making by regulators while not providing necessary information.  Richard Denison, senior Environmental Defense scientist said, "EPA is simply 'kicking the can down the road' by shunning approaches that could have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an open-ended approach with no end in sight."  Environmental Defense is particularly critical of the lack of firm deadlines in the NMSP and the otherwise "loose design" of the program.

While the Nano Risk Framework is a voluntary system of "best practices" that does not involve any centralized reporting, I'm left to wonder what will become of the program now that one of the Framework's founders, DuPont, has signed onto the NMSP.  Certainly companies can participate in both without too much duplication of effort, but will they?  I'm similarly left wondering if there is any damage to the Environmental Defense/DuPont relationship that once seemed a promising partnership between the private and nonprofit sectors for responsible development of nanomaterials.  I hope that relationship is not negatively impacted by this apparent schism between the actors.

Finally, I am encouraged by the quick response of DuPont to support the NMSP.  I've been concerned that the NMSP will go the way of the similar program in the United Kingdom, that garnered 7 submissions in the last 16 months (see prior post here).  DuPont's immediate participation is an early sign of life for the NMSP.  We'll have to see if others follow suit.

Information for this post was obtained from SafeNano.

The partnership agreement outlines the relationship, and includes such areas as human health hazards, release and exposure potential, and occupational and environmental risk management.  The framework will primarily focus on the industrial, chemical, and manufacturing industries, and each partner will bear its own costs of research.  Further, the parties plan to involve additional stakeholders throughout the project in an effort to form a framework that will be widely accepted across all areas of nanotechnology.  Once the partnership is complete (following publication of the findings) all information will be released publicly for consideration.  A draft framework is available here, and is open for comment.

MEH:  This is exactly the type of partnership that will forward the research and understanding of nanotechnology impacts and how to address them.  By having two differing views involved, an understanding can be reached that can then be spread to the industry at-large.  The more stakeholders that get involved in the process, the better the resulting research and regulations will be.  This partnership is an excellent first step, and both DuPont and Environmental Defense should be commended for their initiative.

The 3M research found nanoparticles act as solids, "obey the laws of physics," and fit nicely within existing filtration models.  Thus, Japuntich concluded existing NIOSH respirator standards under 42 CFR 84 should be sufficient for many nanorelated uses.  Japuntich noted the efficacy of filter materials must be evaluated in the context of a complete workplace respirator program including hazard measurement and assessment, face-piece choice, face fit testing, and worker training programs.

Another conference presentation by Michele Ostraat, a Research Engineer at DuPont, discussed similar findings by the Nanoparticle Occupational Safety and Health Consortium. Ostraat spoke regarding the Consortium's recent aerosol chamber research studies on a variety of respirator material using six different types of nanoparticles.  Ostraat posed that, while existing respirator material proved effective for nanomaterials, filter efficacy for nano-aerosols decreases as exposure time increases in certain instances.  The Consortium intends to publish several papers in 2007 setting forth its research findings in detail.  Ostraat also explained the Consortium's parallel goals of making consistent nano-aerosols for research purposes (which it has already accomplished), and creating a reliable, inexpensive, portable, nanoparticle measuring device (which it hopes to unveil by mid-2007).