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

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) held a conference today during which they identified the next six nanoscale materials they intend to target in their second round of data call ins.  Regular readers may remember that CDTSC targeted 26 manufacturers/importers of carbon nanotubes with its first data call in in 2009. 

In addition to identifying the nanoscale materials which will be the subject of the data call in, CDTSC also provided a preliminary list of manufacturers/importers that will receive the data call in, as well as the proposed questions they will be asked.  We cover each material below.

CDTSC also indicated that carbon nanotube manufacturers/importers will receive a second round of data call in questions. 

CDTSC plans to issue all of these new data call ins sometime before the end of the year.  Stay tuned . . .

Nano Silver

Proposed Questions:  What is the chemical composition of your nanosilver material? What is particle size of your nanosilver material used? What is the concentration of nanosilver used in your material? What are the instrumental techniques used to characterize your nanosilver material?What are the analytical methods used in your nanosilver material? How do you measure and monitor fate and transport after useful life of your nanosilver material? How do you detect, measure and monitor releases during facility operations?

Preliminary Recipients:  Nano Composix, Cambrios Technologies, Seashell Technology, Sun Innovations, Stanford Materials, MTI Corporation.

Nano Zero Valent Iron

Proposed Questions:  What are the analytical methods for assessment of toxic effects and safe uses of nano zero valent iron across its lifecycle? How do you sample, measure, and monitor quality? Performance? How do you detect, measure, and monitor releases from facility operations? How do you measure and monitor fate and transport after useful life?

Preliminary Recipients:  American Elements, AMEC Geomatrix, hepure Technologies, OnMaterials, Quantum Sphere, Stanford Materials, Sun Innovations.

Nano Titanium Dioxide

Proposed Questions: What machines and methods do you use to analyze your materials? What are the properties of your materials? After modification? What types of monitoring program are you using in your work place? In air? In water? What is the toxicity when your material is directly contacted with human skin? What is the weathering, liberation rate of your material into the environment? Impacts? What is you actual production amount this year?

Preliminary Recipients:  DuPont, BASF, Evonik, Ishihara, Altair nano, Huntsman, Kronos, Kemira, Kon Corp., Tronox, Nanocompsix, Nano-oxide, Green millenium, MK nano, Advanced Nano, NanoCo, Pilkington.

Nano Zinc Oxide

Proposed Questions:  Describe .specifically the nanostructure, functionalities, and properties (physical, chemical, and biological) of nano zinc oxide material that is produced in the facility.  Describe the in-house instrument and analytical methods you use to determin the presence of nano zinc oxide in the workplace and environment. Describe the chemical information provided by external vendors relative to nano zinc oxide nanostructure, functionalities, and properties.  Describe the instrumentation and analytical methods used by external laboratories that provided the above chemical information.

Preliminary Recipients:  UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, USC, Ferity Zinc Oxide Inc., APF Laboratories, Atomate Corporation, Stanford Materials, Alpha Enivornmental, Nanophase technologies, Sokang nano, Antaria Corporation, Ocean Nano Tech, LaamScience, Advanced nanotechnology, NanoGate, Inframat Advanced Materials, Reade Advanced Materials, KIA, Nanjing Hi Tech Nano Material Co., ltd., Nanozinc Oxide South Africa, NanoMaterials Technology, UmiCore Group, Horsehead Corporation.

Nano Cerium Oxide

Proposed Questions:  What machines and methods do you use to analyze your materials?  What are the properties of your materials? After modification? What types of monitoring program are you using in your work place? In air? In water? Do you know reactions when your material is released into aquatic environment? Do you know reactions when your material is released into air? What is you actual production amount this year?

Preliminary Recipients:  Saint-Gobain, Evonik, Meliorum Tech., Inframat Advanced materials, Antaria, HEFA Rare Earth Canada, Nanocerox, Nyacol, Energenics, MTI Corporation.

Quantum Dots

Proposed Questions:  What are the chemical compositions (purity, concentration, and chemical make-up) of your product's core and shell structures (including organic and inorganic attachments)? Specify its size, hydrodynamic diameter (HD), and surface area.  What analytical detection methods do you use to determine its presence in the workplace and environment? What are the surface properties (surface reactivity, groups, charge) and solubility in water and other solvents? What is the stability of your product in different environments (variable pH, temp, pressure, O2, UV light, water, etc.)? Does it aggregate in aquatic media?

Preliminary Recipients:  Nanosys/QD Soleil, Bloo Solar, Life Technologies, Stio, Quantum Dot Corporation, Chemicon International, Zymera, Invisage Technologies, University of California schools, Intelligent Optical Systems, Kovlo, NanoGram, Philips Lumileds Lighting Co., Toshiba America Electronics Components, Samsung Semiconductor, SEMI, Ultratech, Shrink Nanotechnologies.

 

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

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. 

In late December 2009, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received the first response¹ to its January 22, 2009 information request regarding carbon nanotubes². The original request targeted 26 purported California manufacturers and/or importers of carbon nanotubes³.

It asked for information regarding analytical test methods, environmental fate and transport, and other relevant environmental, health, and safety information. The request was issued by DTSC under authority granted by California's Health and Safety Code 699, Sections 57018-57020. Stanford University was the first entity to respond to the six specific questions contained in DTSC’s request:

1.  What is the value chain for your company? For example, in what products are your carbon nanotubes used by others? In what quantities? Who are your major customers?

2.  What sampling, detection and measurement methods are you using to monitor (detect and measure) the presence of your chemical in the workplace and the environment? Provide a full description of all required sampling, detection, measurement and verification methodologies. Provide full QA/QC protocol.

3.  What is your knowledge about the current and projected presence of your chemical in the environment that results from manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life disposal?

4.  What is your knowledge about the safety of your chemical in terms of occupational safety, public health and the environment?

5.  What methods are you using to protect workers in the research, development and manufacturing environment

6.  When released, does your material constitute a hazardous waste under California Health & Safety Code provisions? Are discarded off-spec materials a hazardous waste? Once discarded are the carbon nanotubes you produce a hazardous waste? What are your waste handling practices for carbon nanotubes?

Stanford’s response was thoughtful, yet very basic. The University confirmed that it follows standard laboratory safety procedures, has implemented most of the nanosafety guidelines issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and that it treats nano-waste as “hazardous waste” for disposal purposes. A summary of Stanford’s answers follows.

In response to DTSC’s first “value chain” question, Stanford responded that it has identified 16 of its laboratories that are working with carbon nanotubes. Research topics include medical applications, electronics, energy storage, fuel production, fundamental physics, and material science research. To support its “value chain” answer, Stanford attached five research papers resulting from its laboratories’ activities.

Regarding DTSC’s second “monitoring” question, Stanford answered that because there are only minimal risks of exposure and release of carbon nanotubes in its laboratories, it has not yet developed or implemented any quantitative sampling or detection methods. The University also advised that it was working with NIOSH to conduct a possible site visit of its facilities in 2010 to potentially address these issues.

Responding to DTSC’s third question concerning the “projected presence” of carbon nanotubes in the environment which may result from Stanford’s activities, the University answered that there could conceivably be (i) accidental releases and spills, (ii) routine releases from laboratory handling, and (iii) the presence of carbon nanotubes in its laboratory waste stream. Importantly, Stanford indicated that the combined use of carbon nanotubes in all of its laboratories only amounts to approximately 16 grams per year and that its nano-waste stream is treated as “hazardous waste.”

Regarding DTSC’s fourth question concerning Stanford’s knowledge of the possible environmental, health, and safety effects of its carbon nanotubes, the University responded that it takes “a precautionary, but reasonable approach” and uses good laboratory safety practices when working with nanoscale materials. Additionally, Stanford maintained that one the articles attached to its submission supports the position that carbon nanotubes are cleared from the body without adverse health effects. Finally, Stanford indicated that it closely follows the nano-EHS literature posted on NIOSH’s website, as well as the comprehensive nano-EHS website of the International Council on Nanotechnology at Rice University.

In response to DTSC’s fifth question concerning the nano-specific workplace safety measures implemented by Stanford, the University responded that (i) it follows a standard chemical hygiene plan created and implemented under existing California law, (ii) has implemented its “General Principles and Practices for Working Safely with Engineered Nanomaterials,” and (iii) has created a standard operation procedure template for use by its nano-laboratories “to assist in determining the [appropriate] levels and types of controls” which should be used in each laboratory working with nanoscale materials. Stanford’s “General Principles” document⁴ can be found on its website and basically summarizes the key points from NIOSH’s “Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology” document⁵ in a condensed bullet point format.

Finally, regarding DTSC’s sixth “hazardous waste” question, Stanford largely mooted the question by explaining that it treats its carbon nanotube waste stream as “hazardous waste,” whether or not such material actually constitutes “hazardous waste” from a scientific and/or regulatory perspective.

On the whole, Stanford put considerable effort into its response to DTSC’s information request, but it contained no “earth shattering” revelations. The University appears to be following state of the art procedures for working safely with carbon nanotubes. More importantly, there was little information in Stanford’s response that the State did not already know or could have learned with a simple telephone call. Of course, all of this begs the question of whether a formal data call in was even necessary in the first place and/or whether California is squandering its rapidly diminishing capital on this project. At the very least, the data call in should have contained a minimum threshold requirement in order to weed out minimal users and to prevent them from having to engage in the time consuming process which Stanford went through.

References:

1. Stanford University CNT Submittal Letter
2. DTSC January 22, 2009, Information Request Regarding Carbon Nanotubes
3. DTSC Carbon Nanotube Contact List
4. Stanford's General Principles Document
5. NIOSH's Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology

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