OMB Receives EPA Notice Concerning Pesticide Products Containing Nanoscale Materials

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website, on July 30, 2010, OMB received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a notice concerning “Pesticide Products Containing Nanoscale Materials.” No additional information regarding the notice is available on OMB’s website. During the April 29, 2010, meeting of EPA’s Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), stated that EPA was in the process of preparing a Federal Register notice on nanomaterials and pesticide products. The notice will announce a new interpretation of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) regulations, that the presence of a nanoscale material is reportable under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2). This controversial interpretation would apply to already registered products, as well as products pending registration. In the same notice, EPA is expected also to memorialize OPP’s view that an active or inert ingredient would be considered “new” if it is a nanoscale material. The new policy would apply even when a non-nanoscale form of that same active or inert is already in a FIFRA-registered product. On June 25, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk, which recommends, among other actions, that EPA should complete its plan to clarify that nanoscale ingredients in already registered pesticides, as well as in those products for which registration is being sought, are to be reported to EPA and that EPA will consider nanoscale ingredients to be new. EPA responded that it agreed with GAO’s recommendation and is working on clarification of registrant’s responsibilities under FIFRA with respect to nanomaterials.

GAO Report States That EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk of Nanomaterials

According to a report released on June 25, 2010, by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces challenges in effectively regulating nanomaterials that may be released in air, water, and waste because EPA lacks the technology to monitor and characterize these materials, or the statutes include volume-based regulatory thresholds that may be too high for effectively regulating the production and disposal of nanomaterials. In preparing its report, GAO identified examples of current and potential uses of nanomaterials; determined what is known about the potential human health and environmental risks from nanomaterials; assessed actions EPA has taken to better understand and regulate the risks posed by nanomaterials as well as its authorities to do so; and identified approaches that other selected national authorities and actions U.S. states have taken to address the potential risks associated with nanomaterials. GAO analyzed selected laws and regulations, reviewed information on EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, and consulted with EPA officials and legal experts to obtain their perspectives on EPA’s authorities to regulate nanomaterials.

GAO’s report includes the following recommendations, all of which are “in process.” EPA’s responses are from its May 4, 2010, letter responding to GAO’s recommendations. The letter is included in GAO’s report.

  • The Administrator of EPA should complete its plan to issue a significant new use rule (SNUR) for nanomaterials.

EPA response: EPA agrees. EPA will continue to issue SNURs for nanoscale materials that are new chemical substances on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate, and intends to propose a SNUR for nanoscale materials that are existing chemical substances by December 2010.

  • The Administrator of EPA should modify Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide registration guidelines to require applicants to identify nanomaterial ingredients in pesticides.

EPA response: EPA agrees and intends to clarify that, as part of the application for registration, applicants for pesticide registrations which contain nanomaterial ingredients need to specifically identify those ingredients.

  • The Administrator of EPA should complete its plan to clarify that nanoscale ingredients in already registered pesticides, as well as in those products for which registration is being sought, are to be reported to EPA and that EPA will consider nanoscale ingredients to be new.

EPA response: EPA agrees and is working on clarification of registrant’s responsibilities under FIFRA with respect to nanomaterials.

  • The Administrator of EPA should make greater use of the Agency’s authorities to gather information under existing environmental statutes. Specifically, EPA should complete its plan to use data gathering and testing authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to gather information on nanomaterials, including production volumes, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release, as well as available health and safety studies.

EPA response: EPA agrees and intends to propose a Section 8(a) information-gathering rule as described in the recommendation and also intends to propose a Section 4 test rule.

  • The Administrator of EPA should make greater use of the Agency’s authorities to gather information under existing environmental statutes. Specifically, EPA should use information-gathering provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to collect information about potential discharges containing nanomaterials.

EPA response: EPA agrees that collecting information about discharges is a critical component of understanding potential environmental risks. EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and others, is conducting research to determine whether nanomaterials may enter the water in forms and levels of concern, as well as how to detect and monitor nanomaterials in effluents and aquatic systems. Once we have these capabilities, EPA will consider whether new reporting requirements should be applied to companies who may be discharging nanomaterials into the environment, including under the CWA.

  • The Administrator of EPA should consider revising the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) under TSCA so that it will capture information on the production and use of nanomaterials and so that the Agency will receive periodic updates on this material.

EPA response: EPA agrees and will consider proposing periodic reporting under the IUR for nanoscale materials.

 

SNWG Concerned About EPA's Regulation of Nanoscale Pesticide Products

In a May 25, 2010, letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) expressed its concern regarding the pending Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) interpretation concerning the regulation of nanoscale pesticide products. In its letter, SNWG states that the new interpretation, which “includes an unsupported and arbitrary definition of ‘nanomaterial’ and ignores decades of historical safety data,” would be “a major and damaging change in policy.” SNWG lists the following concerns:

  • Institutionalize an arbitrary definition of nanotechnology;
  • Contradict the statutory language and purpose of Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
  • Improperly characterize nanosilver as a ‘new’ pesticide;
  • Stifle innovation without any benefit to human health and/or the environment; and
  • Promote a negative public perception regarding nanotechnology as a whole.

SNWG urges EPA to consider its concerns prior to releasing the pending policy.

 

PPDC Discusses Nanotechnology and Pesticides

On April 29, 2010, during the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting, William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), presented slides regarding nanotechnology and pesticides. Jordan briefly described how OPP is defining nanoscale materials and how the technology is being applied to the field of pesticides. His presentation described OPP’s recent consultation with EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) concerning nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products, as well as other ongoing regulatory activity and future actions OPP intends to take.

OPP’s working definition of nanomaterial is:

An ingredient that contains particles that have been intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.

Although nanomaterials occur naturally and can be produced unintentionally, Jordan noted that OPP’s working definition includes the phrase “intentionally produced,” and that those are the ones OPP intends to address.

To obtain more data on hazard and exposure from nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products, OPP is in the process of preparing a Federal Register notice on nanomaterials and pesticide products. The notice will announce a new interpretation of regulations under Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and propose a new policy in June 2010. The new interpretation will be that the presence of a nanoscale material is reportable under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2). In the same notice, EPA is expected also to memorialize OPP’s view that an active or inert ingredient would be considered “new” if it is a nanoscale material.

Jordan also announced that OPP intends to respond in June 2010 to the International Center for Technology Assessment’s (ICTA) May 2008 petition. In its petition, ICTA urged EPA to regulate nanosilver products as pesticides, and asked EPA to take action on an estimated 600 unregistered nanosilver products marketed in the U.S.

Jordan noted the following activities in other EPA offices:

  • Office of Research and Development (ORD) developing a Draft Case Study on nanosilver (expected in 2010); and
  • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) developing the following rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):
  • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) -- Intended to address nanoforms of existing chemicals;
  • Section 8(a) Rule -- Would obtain existing data on current nanomaterials; and
  • Section 4 Test Rule -- Likely at the end of 2010.

 

EPA SAP Releases Report on Nanosilver and Other Nanometal Pesticide Products

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) has released the minutes of its November 3-5, 2009, meeting regarding evaluation of the hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.  In addition to the general observations noted here, more information is available in our February 8, 2010, memorandum. First, the SAP final recommendations address nanosilver almost entirely, and little or no mention is made of “nanometal pesticide products.” Second, the Panel stated that existing models “are not appropriate” for use with silver nanomaterials and “will not accurately predict nanosilver exposure scenarios.” The Panel stated that it “strongly believe[s] that in addition to current data requirements under [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)], additional assays which compared nanoscale and bulk materials would be most beneficial in addressing” differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics for nanoscale materials. This conclusion alone poses formidable challenges for nanosilver pesticide applicants wishing to obtain registration status under FIFRA. Third, the Panel agreed that pesticide products should be tested on a “case-by-case basis,” EPA should use a meta-analysis on the products to understand better trends in life cycle analyses, and “close attention” should be given to products that claim a non-ionic mode of action as an antimicrobial agent. Fourth, the Panel outlined detailed research needs that EPA should consider. The outline will discourage even the most optimistic potential FIFRA registrant for a nanopesticide as the research needs are extensive and likely costly. The Panel also identified the “most useful short-term information needs,” of which stakeholders should be aware. Finally, the Panel stated that a “critical issue” that “must be clarified is the use of [the] terminology ‘nano’” and that for standardization, “the unique property for nanosilver should be established.”

SNWG Presents Data on Silver and Nanotechnology to the SAP

The Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) issued a press release regarding its presentation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) at its November 3-6, 2009, meeting. EPA asked the SAP “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” According to EPA, companies with an interest in marketing products that contain nanosilver and/or other nanometals or nanometal oxides as pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have approached the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) seeking product registration. SNWG’s analysis included the key conclusions that nanosilver is not a new material and that EPA has “safely and successfully” regulated nanosilver products for decades.

EPA Will Webcast SAP Meeting

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will stream its November 3-6, 2009, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting on the Internet. EPA has asked the SAP “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” According to EPA, companies with an interest in marketing products that contain nanosilver and/or other nanometals or nanometal oxides as pesticides regulated under FIFRA have approached the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) seeking product registration. OPP believes, based on its understanding of the scientific literature, that pesticides containing nanoscale materials may pose different risks to humans and the environment than those of pesticides that do not contain nanomaterials.

EPA Announces SAP Meeting Concerning Nanosilver

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in a September 16, 2009, Federal Register notice that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) will meet November 3-6, 2009, “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc SAP members for this meeting are due September 30, 2009. The meeting will be open to the public. EPA asks that written comments be submitted by October 20, 2009, to allow for distribution to the SAP, and that requests for oral comments be made by October 27, 2009.  EPA also states that written comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, however.

NGOs Call for Obama Administration to Establish Moratorium on Pesticidal Nanotechnology

According to a draft January 7, 2009, document, non-governmental organizations (NGO) such as Beyond Pesticides and the Pesticide Action Network for North America recommend that the Obama Administration take a number of immediate actions within its first 100 days, including establishing a moratorium on pesticidal nanotechnology. The NGOs call for the suspension of the registration of nanoproducts with pesticidal properties, and the removal of untested products from the market.  The NGOs urge the Obama Administration to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a clear testing protocol that identifies the full range of potential adverse health and environmental effects of nanoproducts with pesticidal properties. The NGOs cite the 60-day comment period on the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) petition as an acknowledgment by EPA of “the critical need for in-depth review of products utilizing nanotechnology pesticides.” ICTA petitioned EPA in May 2008 to regulate nanoscale silver products as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

OPP Posts Page on Nanotechology and Pesticides

On July 22, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) posted a web page entitled “Pesticide Issues in the Works:  Nanotechnology, the Science of Small.” The web page states: “[The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)] and EPA’s implementing regulations provide an effective framework for regulating pesticide products that are a product of nanotechnology or that contain nanoscale materials.” According to the page, “EPA is currently examining potential hazard, exposure, policy, regulatory, and international issues that may be associated with pesticides that are a product of nanotechnology or that contain nanoscale materials.” While EPA has met with several companies “to discuss requirements for some specific nanoscale materials being considered for use as pesticides,” EPA has not yet received a formal registration application. EPA “strongly recommends” that companies contact the pesticide registration Ombudsmen “to arrange a pre-application conference as early as possible in the development of any pesticide that would be a product of nanotechnology or that would contain nanoscale material.”

ICTA-Led Coalition Petitions for FIFRA Regulation of Nanoscale Silver Products

On May 1, 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), together with 13 other consumer, health, and environmental groups, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding that EPA regulate as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that it take additional actions under FIFRA and other environmental statutes concerning, consumer products containing nanoscale silver. ICTA also released an inventory of the nano silver-containing consumer products referenced in the petition.

The petition contends that nano silver is “the most commonly used nanomaterial in consumer products and the fastest growing sector of nanomaterial commercialization,” and that most companies “market their nano-silver products [by] putting emphasis on the nano-silver ingredient, touting its antimicrobial and antibacterial qualities . . . .” The petition states that “research has mounted to indicate that nano-silver materials pose serious risks to human health and the environment.” In support of the petition, the ICTA-led coalition pointed to, inter alia, EPA Region 9’s recent FIFRA enforcement settlement with a California company, IOGEAR, that had been making antimicrobial claims for the nano silver coating on computer accessories it was marketing.

The petition requests that EPA take the following actions:

  • Clarify that nano silver and products containing it are pesticides requiring registration under FIFRA;
  • Classify nanomaterial pesticides such as nano silver as new pesticides [i.e., new active ingredients] that require new registrations, with nano-specific toxicity testing and risk assessment;
  • Assess the potential human health and environmental risks of nano silver under FIFRA, the Food Quality Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act;
  • Take immediate action, including the issuance of Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders, to halt the sale of nano silver products with unapproved antimicrobial claims;
  • Fully apply all FIFRA regulations in the event EPA registers any nano silver products; and
  • Utilize its FIFRA authority to further review the potential human health and environmental impacts of nano silver, including undertaking either a classification review or a Special Review, amending the FIFRA regulations to require as part of a registration application the submission of nanomaterial and/or nano silver-specific data, undertaking a registration review of existing bulk silver registrations, regulating nano silver pesticide devices, and establishing a tolerance for nano silver under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The coalition requests that EPA respond to the petition “within a reasonable time.”