Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health Considers Dispersible Engineered Nanomaterials

The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) met on May 3, 2012, during which it discussed the use of occupational exposure levels (OEL) by the federal government. Because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) permissible exposure limits (PEL) have remained unchanged since their adoption on May 29, 1971, and do not account for advances in technology or the latest data, FACOSH asked its Emerging Issues Subcommittee to analyze federal agencies’ use of PELs. As part of its review, the Subcommittee identified other issues of interest, including dispersible engineered nanomaterials (DENM). A document entitled “Recommendations for Consideration by the U.S. Secretary of Labor on the Adoption and Use of Occupational Exposure Limits by Federal Agencies” includes the following text concerning DENMs:

  • OSHA defines nanomaterials as, “materials that have been purposefully manufactured, synthesized, or manipulated to have a size with at least one dimension in the range of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers and that exhibit unique properties determined by their size.”
  • Published scientific studies have indicated that at least some DENMs are biologically active, have produced toxicological reactions in the lungs of exposed experimental animals, and may readily penetrate intact human skin. While DENMs are truly an emerging issue and published results are not plentiful, scientists and federal agencies, such as NIOSH, continue to conduct research to understand fully the potential health effects of exposure.
  • Currently, both scientists and federal agencies agree that DENM toxicity depends heavily on the physical and chemical properties of the nanoparticles, such as particle size and size distribution, agglomeration state, shape, crystal structure, chemical composition, surface area, surface chemistry, surface charge, and porosity, and that these properties may differ substantially from those of the same material in macro-scale form.

U.S. Delegation May Present Nanotechnology Guidance at UN GHS Subcommittee Meeting

The U.S. delegation to the July 4-6, 2012, meeting of the United Nations (UN) Subcommittee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) is considering presenting an information paper on how to classify nanomaterials under the GHS. According to Kathy Landkrohn, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Directorate of Standards and Guidance, the paper would be presented under a work group examining the types of physical and chemical properties listed on safety data sheets (SDS). Landkrohn stated that a lack of data has impeded the work group’s ability to create a separate hazard class for nanomaterials.

B&C and Acta Will Hold an OSHA GHS Webinar

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C) and The Acta Group, L.L.C. (Acta) will hold a complimentary webinar on April 18, 2012, from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. (EDT) on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) final rule revising the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) issued on March 26, 2012. The final rule aligns the HCS with the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System for Chemical Classification and Labeling (GHS). OSHA estimates the rule is expected to impact some five million U.S. workplaces and have an annual cost of approximately $97 million.

The webinar will address the major changes to the HCS, including a general overview, revisions to hazard categories, training/information requirements, safety data sheet (SDS) modifications, and label requirements. It will also compare the revised HCS to global GHS adoption schemes. A question and answer session will follow. More specific detail oriented webinars will be provided as a follow-up. Speakers include:

  • Lynn L. Bergeson;
  • Andrew R. Bourne;
  • Lisa R. Burchi; and 
  • Leslie S. MacDougall.

Lynn L. Bergeson will moderate the program. 

The agenda and speaker profiles are available online.  The RSVP deadline is April 16, 2012.

Attendees are urged to review the B&C Clients and Friends memorandum on OSHA's final GHS rule. OSHA's final rule and related information are available online

ICON Announces Availability of Presentation Slides from Training Course

On November 8, 2011, the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) announced the availability of the presentation slides from the modules for the training course entitled “Introduction to Nanomaterials and Occupational Health.”  The course was developed under a grant from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and is intended to prepare safety professionals to address issues that may arise in the nanomaterial workplace by providing a comprehensive review of current knowledge, frameworks for risk management, and tools for keeping up with the rapidly expanding knowledge base on nanomaterials’ health and safety impacts. The course modules include:

  • Introduction to Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials;
  • What Workers Need to Know about Nanomaterial Toxicology and Environmental Impacts;
  • Assessing and Controlling Exposure to Nanomaterials in the Workplace;
  • Risk Management Approaches for Nanomaterial Workplaces;
  • Regulations and Standards Relevant to Nanomaterial Workplaces; and
  • Tools and Resources for Further Study.

NNI Will Hold Webinar to Announce 2011 EHS Research Strategy

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will hold a webinar on October 20, 2011, to announce the release of the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy, and to discuss the development of the Strategy and its key focus areas. Dr. John Howard, Co-Chair of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group, will serve as the moderator. Panelists will include:

  • Dr. Treye Thomas, NEHI Working Group Co-Chair;
  • Dr. Shaun Clancy, Evonik DeGussa Corporation;
  • Dr. Janet Carter, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and
  • Lynn L. Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The webinar will include a 20-minute question-and-answer segment following the presentations.

 

PEN Report Finds States Could Prompt Federal Action Regarding Nanotechnology

On April 9, 2008, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released a report entitled Room at the Bottom? Potential State and Local Strategies for Managing the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. According to the report, because of the slow pace of federal action to regulate development of nanotechnology, “there is ‘room at the bottom’ for state and local governments to move forward in pursuing regulatory and other oversight options.” Research for the report identified a number of states with laws promoting the nanotechnology industry or other initiatives encouraging research and development on nanotechnology applications. The report states that each of the 50 states is “home to at least one company, university, government laboratory, or other type of organization working with nanomaterials.”

The report discusses possible options for states and localities to oversee the environmental, health, and worker safety impacts of nanotechnology. According to the report, the following existing state authorities and experiences could be applied to nanotech oversight:

  • Air: At least 15 state agencies have adopted stringent air quality laws or regulations to fill a gap in federal standards, and at least 29 local air agencies are authorized to adopt more stringent air quality controls;
  • Waste: Several states have imposed standards for regulating metals in waste that are not covered by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations;
  • Water: State laws often offer substantial flexibility for regulating and controlling water discharges that may contain pollutants;
  • Labeling: States are free to adopt their own product labeling requirements, similar to those provided for toxic chemicals by California’s Proposition 65; and
  • Worker Safety: The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) has approved plans for 21 states that enable them to adopt federal safety standards for workers in private industry.

The report identifies California, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey as “the states that appear most able to launch initiatives for overseeing safe and responsible development of nanotechnology.” 

The report identifies the following four scenarios for potential action by states or localities to fill gaps in federal oversight and thereby initiate their own oversight of nanotechnology’s health, safety, and environmental impacts:

  1. Localities could require disclosure of potential health, safety, or environmental hazards;
  2. States or localities may choose to adopt standards that are expert-driven, such as the nanotechnology workplace standards being developed by ASTM International, the International Organization for Standardization, or other standards bodies;
  3. Stakeholders -- such as state or local regulators in other programs, consumers, workers, and even nearby businesses -- may play an important role in nanotechnology oversight when they exert pressure on states to control or prevent releases of nanomaterials; or
  4. One or more states may choose to collaborate to establish joint regional standards or approaches for overseeing the safe development of nanotechnology.

FDLI and PEN Will Cosponsor First Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation, and Policy

The Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) will hold a conference on February 28-29, 2008, on “Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy.” Questions addressed during the conference will include:

  • How is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) going to implement its Nanotechnology Task Force Report?
  • How is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) going to deal with nanotech issues in the workplace?
  • Is Congress ready to act on nanotechnology if federal regulators don’t?
  • What first and second generation nanotechnology products are already on the market, and what’s to come?
  • Do Europe and Asia approach nanotechnology safety and oversight differently than the United States?
  • When it comes to nanotechnology, should size make a regulatory difference?

Bush Administration Releases Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight

On November 8, 2007, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum regarding “Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight.” According to the memorandum, OSTP and CEQ “led a multi-agency consensus-based process” to develop principles intended to guide the development and implementation of policies for nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety oversight at the agency level.  The memorandum says that federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) “must implement sound policies to protect public health and the environment,” and “agencies that perform nanotechnology research and development or that use nanotechnology in accomplishing their mission must provide appropriate oversight.”

The memorandum states that these agencies should follow the following principles in developing policies for environmental, health, and safety oversight related to nanotechnology:

  • Purpose:  Federal oversight approaches should be cognizant of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, including health, economic, and environmental benefits, while recognizing uncertainties surrounding the evolving science and technology.  The purpose of considering environmental, health, and safety oversight approaches in the context of nanotechnology is to protect human health and the environment.
  • Current Understanding:  The federal government’s current understanding is that existing statutory authorities are adequate to address oversight of nanotechnology and its applications.  As with any developing area, as new information becomes available the federal government will adapt or develop additional oversight approaches, as necessary, to address the area of nanotechnology.
  • Information Development:  Adequate information should be developed with respect to the effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment.  To the extent practicable and respecting confidential information (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)), this information should be developed in an open and transparent manner by stakeholders, including the federal government and developers of nanomaterials.
  • Risk Assessment and Risk Management:  The federal government should use standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits, and manage risks, considering safety, health and environmental impacts, and exposure mitigation.  As experience is gained, these approaches can be refined.  The federal government should strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and management approaches across the government.
  • International:  Recognizing the global efforts to develop nanotechnology, the federal government should proactively promote international cooperation.  The federal government should encourage coordinated and collaborative health and environmental research and test data development across the international community.  The federal government should also promote access to information across the international community.  These efforts will allow the federal government to contribute to, and take advantage of, risk assessment and risk management approaches, as appropriate, across the international community.
  • Regulatory Path Forward:  In light of the “Purpose” of oversight as described above, the federal government should consider the following, to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, in establishing environmental, health, and safety regulations for nanotechnology:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Issues Statement on the Occupational and Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology

The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) recently issued a position statement on nanotechnology risks. The CSTE statement observes that the “health, safety and environmental effects of nanomaterials are poorly understood,” and that “our limited knowledge of [nanotechnology’s] potential harm is cause for concern.” Among other things, CSTE calls: for increased funding for research on the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology; for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require content-labeling on products containing nanoparticles that are aerosolized or applied to the skin; and for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue standards for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment against known or suspected harmful effects of nanoparticles.

Senate Requests GAO Review of NNI

In a March 15, 2007, letter, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was created to accelerate the discovery, development, and deployment of nanoscale science and technology. For fiscal year 2006, NNI received $1.2 billion in research and development funding, and 22 federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), participate in NNI. According to the letter, one key expectation for NNI was “to ensure that adequate attention and research funding was made available to gain a better understanding of the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks associated with nanomaterials.” The letter states that the Committee and Caucus “are extremely concerned that this has not happened and that there is a lack of transparency with regard to how much federal attention and funding this important aspect of the initiative is receiving.”

To determine the extent to which federal agencies have undertaken EHS research and how they are prioritizing and managing this research, the Committee and Caucus ask GAO to:

  •  Review the extent to which NNI-related resources have been devoted to study the EHS risks of nanomaterials;
  • Identify the key areas of research for which this EHS funding has been used;
  • Determine what processes the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group uses to prioritize and coordinate these various EHS research efforts; and
  • Review and identify any EHS-related research and regulatory activities, independent of the NNI, that EPA, FDA, CPCS, and OSHA have undertaken, the amount of funding made available for these efforts, and the extent to which information about these efforts has been communicated to the Working Group to ensure that they are considered in the overall research planning processes for the NNI.