Showing posts with label berkeley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label berkeley. Show all posts
, ,

Compliance towards Berkeley's Nano Regulation

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

From the Berkeley Daily Planet:

By the June 1 reporting date the only business following the formal reporting procedure was Bayer Laboratories, according to Toxics Manager Nabil Al-Hadithy. The other two local users of the technology, UC Berkeley and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) responded, but did not include the specific data required by the ordinance.

“I am especially disappointed because LBLN has been engaged in the process [of writing the reporting procedures] for two years and has failed to implement it,” Al-Hadithy said.

The policy requires companies working with engineered nanoparticles—materials one of whose axes is 100 nanometers or less (a nanometer is one-trillionth of a meter)—to submit a report disclosing the toxicology of the nanoparticles used and “how the facility will safely handle, monitor, contain, dispose, track inventory, prevent releases and mitigate such materials,” says the city ordinance.

For my previous post on this issue and my discussion with N. Hadithy with regards to the content of the Berkely regulation, click here and here.

 

, , , , , ,

Update on Berkeley Nanotech Regulations

Friday, February 2, 2007

This is to update my analysis on Berkeley Nanotechnology Regulations in the previous post. On the December 2006 post, I suggested this interpretation:
  1. The duty is to report, no more, no less
  2. There are no exact standard as to the form of the report
  3. General minimum disclosure standards may apply. Producers shall disclose anything within the boundaries of their present knowledge. Non disclosure may arise civil liability
  4. It only applies to "manufactured" nanoparticles produced in the Jurisdiction of the city of Berkeley. That means, natural nanoparticle or nanoparticle resulting from side-reaction could be exempted from this regulation. This could also mean that nanoparticles being imported to Berkeley is outside the scope of this regulation
  5. The city cannot ban production and sale of nanoparticles by simply basing itself on the regulation. These are EPA's authority
  6. The regulation does not regulate nanotechnology as a whole! It only regulates nanoparticle. Obviously, nanostructures are exempted from this regulation
  7. There could be problems with regards to the definition of "nanoparticle"
With regards to point #2, I have obtained information that the standard reporting forms are currently being reviewed by industry and other stakeholders. So there might be a standard form of reporting. With regards to point #3, the report might need to be reviewed by an independent third party, a professional toxicologist or CIH, and this constitute a part of the reporting form. My interpretation is inaccurate with regards to point #4. Importation of nanoparticle to Berkeley will be subjected to the reporting obligation. With regards to point #6, nanostructures may be subjected to reporting obligation if one of their axis is 100 NM or smaller (fit the definition of "nanoparticle").

Preliminary observation on the regulation will be based on this report (pdf).

I agree with Mr. Hadithy that these precautionary approaches are required to protect the society from unknown harm. There is really nothing unusual with respect to the regulation, it is no different than normal chemical legislation which also require disclosure. The only differences is that this one is applied to nanoparticles. As have been discussed in my other posts, there is inconclusive research result on the harmful effect of nanoparticles to human.

Cambridge is also planning to follow Berkely in regulating Nanotechnology:
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
WHEREAS: The use of subatomic materials as microscopic building blocks for thousands of consumer products has turned into a big business so quickly that few are monitoring nanotechnology’s effects on health and the environment; and
WHEREAS: The city of Berkeley, California, has amended the hazardous materials section of its Municipal Code in order to monitor those impacts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby requested to examine the nanotechnology ordinance for Berkeley, California, and recommend an appropriate ordinance for Cambridge.
The document of the Cambridge Civic Council Meeting is available here. It has also been in the reported in the news:
Cambridge, Mass. is considering becoming the second city in the country to regulate nanotechnology-- the science of building devices at the molecular scale -- a month after Berkeley, Calif. became the first.
(Note: Boston Business Journal's definition of nanotech above appears to depict molecular manufacturing, this could be misleading with regards to the regulation of nanoparticles)

I have one more question. Supposed the City found that certain nanoparticle have a "med" or "high" risk, what will it attempt to do?

(Many Thanks to: Nabil A Al Hadithy, Secretary CEAC)

 

, , ,

The so-called Berkeley Nanotechnology Regulation

Thursday, December 28, 2006

The famous first-in-the-world Nanotechnology Regulation of the City of Berkeley took effect last week. Curious on what the law actually contains? Take a peek:
15.12.040 Filing of disclosure information.
I. All facilities that manufacture or use manufactured nanoparticles shall submit a separate written disclosure of the current toxicology of the materials reported, to the extent known, and how the facility will safely handle, monitor, contain, dispose, track inventory, prevent releases and mitigate such materials.

15.12.050 Quantities requiring disclosure.
C. The following disclosure requirements shall apply in addition to those in subsections A and B of this section:
7. All manufactured nanoparticles, defined as a particle with one axis less than 100 nanometers in length, shall be reported in the disclosure plan.
That's it. Simple right? Nothing's special at all, the regulation only imposes a duty to report the toxicology features of nanoparticles being manufactured. Here's my analysis:
  1. The duty is to report, no more, no less
  2. There are no exact standard as to the form of the report
  3. General minimum disclosure standards may apply. Producers shall disclose anything within the boundaries of their present knowledge. Non disclosure may arise civil liability
  4. It only applies to "manufactured" nanoparticles produced in the Jurisdiction of the city of Berkeley. That means, natural nanoparticle or nanoparticle resulting from side-reaction could be exempted from this regulation. This could also mean that nanoparticles being imported to Berkeley is outside the scope of this regulation
  5. The city cannot ban production and sale of nanoparticles by simply basing itself on the regulation. These are EPA's authority
  6. The regulation does not regulate nanotechnology as a whole! It only regulates nanoparticle. Obviously, nanostructures are exempted from this regulation
  7. There could be problems with regards to the definition of "nanoparticle"
So, those are the analysis. Really-realy nothing special. I wonder why it had been such a big fuss. By the way, you can download the draft regulation yourself here. Let me know if your analysis are different than mine.


Any information contained herein is intended as a general discussion on legal and other corresponding issues. Tips and advices given on these issues do not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. You shall seek independent counsel to act upon any laws discussed in this weblog.

ATTENTION: This post has been updated here.