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

This article originally appeared on the National Nanomanufacturing Network's InterNano website earlier today. It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

Maxine Savitz[1] and Ed Penhoe[2] provided a recent presentation summarizing the highlights of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)[3] report on the status of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) at a public meeting held at the National Academics on March 12, 2010.

Ms. Savitz provided a brief review at the beginning of the presentation regarding how, when, and why NNI was formed; its history from 2000 - 2010; and some of the participants in the PCAST review process. Participants included representatives from DuPont, IBM, A123 Systems, Nanocomp Technologies, Rice, Harvard, Caltech, Sandia National Labs, and the Woodrow Wilson Institute. Ms Savitz also explained that the group held two prior working meetings to solicit input from government agencies, the legislative and executive branches, as well as outside stakeholders. Finally, she explained that PCAST’s report has three major thematic areas: NNI program management; NNI output and work product; and NNI environmental, health, and safety programs and strategies.

Ed Penhoet then provided an update regarding NNI’s continued successes. He noted that the US is currently the world leader in nanotechnology and commercialization, but that other nations are gaining fast -- particularly in Asia and Europe. He further noted that NNI has had a substantial impact on the US nanotechnology industry over the past ten years, which can be seen in the larger number of nanotechnology patents filed, nano-related publications, and nano-related products hitting the commercial market during that period.

Mr. Penhoet further explained that while NNI is being effectively managed, there is still room for some improvement and greater coordination.

For an example, Mr. Penhoet pointed out that there is a lack of basic underlying data from which to analyze the economics of nano-related research, development, and commercialization in the US. Thus, it is difficult to precisely quantify the economic effectiveness of the NNI in measurable terms.

As another example, Mr. Penhoet also mentioned the need to identify and understand potential nano-related risks -- both for purposes of fundamental science, and also to provide a clear regulatory environment and path for commercialization. While undoubtedly a significant portion of PCAST’s written report touches on these issues, the topic was only briefly mentioned in passing during the presentation.

Mr. Penhoet then spent the majority of his presentation explaining the five major recommendations embodied in PCAST’s written report:

• Increase NNI funding for manufacturing research while maintaining support for basic research.
• Strengthen the NNCO, the NNI coordinating entity, with additional funds and a broader mandate.
• Require that metrics be developed to track benefits of nanotechnology such as job creation.
• Develop a cross agency strategy that links EHS research and knowledge gaps and decision making needs.
• Expedite the citizenship review process for those receiving advanced degrees in science and engineering.

The presentation closed with comments by several PCAST members regarding (i) potential methods for developing the underlying economic data needed to properly evaluate nano-related job creation and return on investment; and (ii) potential methods for increasing retention rates of foreign students obtaining advanced nano-related degrees in the US by reducing and/or streamlining citizenship restrictions.

PCAST voted to accept and approve the report after it is amended to reflect the comments discussed during the presentation.

References
[1] Director of the Washington Advisory Group, an LECG Company. Ms. Savitz is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation, US Department of Energy. Prior to her DOE service, she was program manager for Research Applied to National Needs at the National Science Foundation. Following her government service, she served in executive positions in the private sector, including: President of Lighting Research Institute, assistant to the vice president for engineering at The Garrett Corporation, and General Manager of Allied Signal Ceramic Components. She recently retired from the position of General Manager for Technology Partnerships at Honeywell.

[2]President of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Mr. Penhoet is the former dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, prior to which he cofounded and managed the Chiron Corporation. Prior that he was a faculty member of the Biochemistry Department of U.C. Berkeley. Mr. Penhot currently serves as the vice chairman of the Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee which oversees the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine created by the passage of Proposition 71, the stem cell initiative.

[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article was written by John C. Monica, Jr. and Dr. Diana Bowman and originally appeared on the National Nanomanufacturing Network's InterNano website earlier today.  It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

Dr. Bowman is a Senior Research Fellow in the School for Population Health at the University of Melbourne and a Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of International and European Law, KU Leuven. Dr. Bowman is also a co-editor, along with Matthew Hull, of the book “Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety: Risks, Regulation and Management,” (Elsevier, 2010).

In November 2009, the Australian Government’s Department of Health and Aging (DHA) published a public discussion paper —“Proposal for Regulatory Reform of Industrial Nanomaterials”—in relation to the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), which provides a national system of notification and assessment of industrial chemicals. For the purpose of the scheme, “industrial chemicals” include chemical entities found in, for example, many plastics and paints. And, unlike many jurisdictions, those chemicals found in cosmetic products. The paper provides concrete recommendations for the regulation of both “new” nanoscale chemical substances and “existing” chemical substances in nanoscale formulations, while thoughtfully considering legitimate business needs.

Regarding “new” nanoscale chemical substances, the paper notes that—by legal definition—these substances are those which are not already listed on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances and as such are subject to existing regulatory requirements. The paper also notes that several permitting exemptions currently exist for certain uses of chemicals already on the Inventory. As an initial nano-regulatory step, the paper recommends excluding “new” nanoscale materials not already on the Inventory from regulatory low volume exemptions, “thereby shifting a post-market audit activity to a pre-market assessment (i.e. new nanomaterials to be assessed under permit or certification categories prior to commercialization).” The suggestion is not unduly punitive, and a similar approach is already in use by the US EPA.

Additionally, the paper recommends modifying the Research and Development exemption for “new” chemical substances to require annual reporting of nanoscale materials produced in quantities exceeding 100 grams per year. While the paper could benefit from some explanation of why this specific threshold was selected, the idea of providing basic information on nanoscale materials used in sufficient quantities for research and development is not onerous.

The main rationale for these modifications is that the “uncertainty surrounding the hazards, exposure, and risk assessment methodologies . . . means that the determination of ‘no unreasonable risk’ or ‘non-hazardous’, both of which are prerequisites to a range of exemptions, is not expected to be straightforward,” and the accompanying need for a case-by-case approach to the responsible development of nanoscale chemical substances.

Regarding “existing” nanoscale chemical substances, the paper recommends that the Australian Government consider following up on their somewhat disappointing voluntary data call-ins under the NICNAS scheme (held in 2006 and 2008) with a study on “the feasibility of a mandatory notification and assessment program.” Such a program would be designed to establish a database of “existing” nanoscale chemicals in use in Australia and increase public confidence in regulatory oversight efforts. U.S. EPA is also considering a mandatory data call-in for nanoscale materials, while California has already issued a mandatory data call-in for carbon nanotubes and is targeting several additional nanoscale materials.

Australia’s DHA’s recommendations are well-balanced. Business and commercialization needs are recognized even though human and environmental, health, and safety regulatory needs are given priority. However, the paper largely ignores the most difficult topic in this space—whether nanoscale versions of “existing” chemicals already on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances should be considered “new” chemical substances for regulatory purposes, as suggested by Ludlow, Bowman, and Hodge in their review of Australia’s regulatory framework for nanotechnology, thus triggering pre-market approval requirements prior to commercialization. This issue has been argued back and forth in the US, the EU and other jurisdictions for quite some time, and it is unlikely that Australia will be able to avoid similar strong debate. It is perhaps the biggest issue facing regulators seeking to modify Australia’s industrial chemical legislative framework to fully cover both “new” and “existing” nanoscale materials.

Beyond the substantive regulatory changes noted above, the paper does an excellent job of explaining what “industrial nanomaterials” are, their current regulatory status in Australia, and national and international regulatory activities for nanoscale materials. Moreover, the paper is written in sharp, clear language. It provides lots of key questions for stakeholders to consider when thinking about these issues, as well as surveys and questionnaires encouraging feedback and input. The Australian Government is also sponsoring public consultation activities in most of the country’s larger metropolitan areas to explains the paper to stakeholders first-hand and to solicit additional input.

References

National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessment Scheme (Department of Health and Aging, Australian Government). Proposal for Regulatory Reform of Industrial Nanomaterials. Public Discussion Paper. November 2009. Available from NICNAS. http://www.nicnas.gov.au/Current_Issues/Nanotechnology/Stakeholder_Consultation.asp

Ludlow K, Bowman DM, and Hodge GA. 2007. A Reveiw of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia'a Regulatory Framework. Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Monash University, Melbourn.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Nanomanufacuring Network (NNN) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst just published its October newsletter which you can find here.  There is a nice article by Barbara Beck and Chris Long from Gradient regarding the recent Song nanoparticle study from China which was my first contributing editor piece for NNN's InterNano.  Please read the newsletter and follow NNN's valuable work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The last decade has seen the rise of the People's Republic of China as a major economic, industrial and military power. According to a recent article in the UK's Guardian, it might soon become a major power in nanotechnology and nanoindustry.  The article by Tom Mackenzie may be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/26/nanotechnology-china .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Battelle Memorial Institute, the University of Washington, and the University of Oregon are co-sponsoring the international Nanotechnology Health and Safety Forum (NHSF) in Seattle, Washington on June 8 - 9, 2009.  The NHSF is coinciding with the first world-wide meeting of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC 229 -- Nanotechnologies being held in the United States, and will take place at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center.

Topics covered at the NHSF will include:

• The EHS Progress Report: today's status and tomorrow's next steps
• International Standards: developing a timeline & milestones
• Navigating Regulations: encouraging dialogue between Europe, Asia, and the U.S.
• Safety Guidelines: state of the science and recommended occupational safety guidelines for working with nanomaterials
• Managing Risk: the insurance industry perspective
• What's New: current activities of innovative nano-manufacturers

I have been invited to speak on the insurance/managing risk panel along with speakers from Riddell Williams, Hunton & Williams, Zurich North America, and Chubb Insurance:

The availability of insurance for entities using nanotechnology is critical to the further development and application of nanomaterials in industry. Yet the widening use of nanotechnology (while toxicology remains to be determined) is a central concern for the global insurance industry. Insurance, Nanotechnology, and Risk addresses the prospects for managing nano risk through the perspectives of a Silicon Valley loss control specialist, a major international underwriter, and liability / coverage counsel.

This should be a great conference with an international focus; plus Seattle in June is going to be a lot of fun. Hope to see you there.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) "helps the Agency protect the environment in a more efficient and cost effective manner.  [It] consist[s] of auditors, program analysts, investigators, and others with extensive expertise" who are tasked with evaluating EPA's ability to deliver on key Agency policies.  Risk Policy Report ran an article yesterday (October 14, 2008) indicating that EPA's OIG intended to assess EPA's nanotechnology efforts in FY 2009.  We tracked down the underlying document which is attached here.  Specifically, EPA OIG intends to conduct an "[a]ssessment of EPA's Efforts to Monitor, Evaluate, and Act on Threats from the Production, Use and Disposal of Nanotechnology Products/Nanomaterials."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link