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

Stratfor on Nanotechnology

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Startfor issued a short article on regulating nanotechnology. There's nothing in this article that we have not discuss, it seems, but one conclusion captures my attention:
Many see REACH as more protective of public health and the environment than TSCA. As such, there is a growing movement in the United States for the adoption of REACH-like chemical regulations. For those calling for a complete reassessment of TSCA, the revolution in nanotechnology has come at the right time. They argue that TSCA cannot cope with the challenges of nanotechnology, so therefore the law should be revamped to prepare for the next wave of technology. A number of states are currently considering their own REACH-like laws, and the "opening" of TSCA (Capitol Hill-speak for rewriting the law) seems increasingly likely in the coming years.
We have discussed this possibility on the EU-US "gap" post, but we see that if this conclusion is correct, then the US is moving towards filling the gap somewhere in the future.

The rest of the article is worth to read. It provides a good introduction in problems surrounding present-day nanotech regulation. Read more here.

 

, , , ,

Regulating Nanotechnology Wihtin Precautionary Principle

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

A Report from the Institut fuer oekologische Wirtschaftsforschung for the European Parliament benchmarked precutionary principle embodied in several environmental legislations, from the REACH in EU to TSCA in the US.

From the report, you can tell which side of the world advocates stronger precautionary principle and how it affects future nanotechnology regulation. Read the report here.

 

, , , ,

EPA's Nano Program -- open for public comment

Saturday, July 14, 2007

EPA has issued Federal Register (FR) notices seeking public comment on a concept paper and other materials related to its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program.

The debate still hovers around the issue if nanomaterials are to be considered as a 'new' material under the TSCA. J.C. Davies said:
“The agency’s current practice is inadequate to deal with nanotechnology. It is essential that EPA move quickly to recognize the novel biological and ecological characteristics of nanoscale materials. It can do this only by using the ‘new uses’ provisions of TSCA, a subject not mentioned in the EPA’s inventory document. With the approach outlined by EPA and because of the weaknesses in the law, the agency is not even able to identify which substances are nanomaterials, much less determine whether they pose a hazard.”
EPA also issued papers for public comment on Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP)—in order to encourage industry to provide a voluntary scientific information about the risk management practices currently applied.

The EPA's official website on the program is here. Project on Emerging Nanotech website containing a March 2007 Report (titled Nanotech: Oversight for 21st Century) plus a webscast is available here. To get a glimpse on the application of TSCA to nanomaterials, read a March 2007 paper from Lynn L Bergeson here. You might also want to read Scott Deatherage's discussion in his blog on this issue here.

H.T: Gregor Wolbring

 

, , ,

Is TSCA sufficient to cover nanotech?

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

The debate over TSCA in nanotech hovers primarily around the issue of putting engineered nanoparticle as a "new substance". Some expert considers TSCA adequate to overcome new technologies while other is pessimistic on the approach and cries for chemical reform.

This week's article in Chemicals and Engineering highlights the role of TSCA and compares it to the new EU's REACH. Only very small part of the article is dedicated to discuss nanotech. Click here to read.