The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must make key
decisions about how to apply the two major end-of-life statutes to
nanotechnology waste in order to ensure adequate oversight for these
technologies, concludes a new report from the Wilson Center’s
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. However, the report notes that
the Agency lacks much of the data on human health and eco-toxicity that
form the basis for such determinations, creating some tough challenges
ahead in EPA’s decision-making process.
In addition, firms that manufacture nanomaterials, investors,
and insurers should consider the new kinds of liabilities and
environmental risks that may emerge as a result of the release and
disposal of waste nanomaterials into the environment. The report, Where
Does the Nano Go? End-of Life Regulation of Nanotechnologies, written
by environmental law experts Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass of the
Environmental Law Institute, was commissioned by the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies, an initiative of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The
report is available online at: www.nanotechproject.org/132.
The report provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of
two key EPA-administered laws that regulate the end-of-life management
strategies for nanotechnology materials and products. These are the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also
known as the Superfund statute.
According to the report, companies must recognize that as a
result of CERCLA, RCRA and other environmental statutes, the
environmental due diligence that accompanies many commercial
transactions and securities offerings should include an examination
of the handling and disposal of nanomaterials. Insurers also
need to “take into account the potential for CERCLA and RCRA
liability arising from releases or disposal of waste nanomaterials and
products in drafting new insurance policies, interpreting existing
policies, and planning for future potential liabilities.”
Central to all risk management efforts is the need for the EPA to
“conduct outreach and education to the private sector,
particularly to small companies and start-ups, about how RCRA and
CERCLA could apply to nanomaterials.”
“Today, with hundreds of nanotechnology products
already on the market, one of the questions in greatest need of
attention is how various forms of nanomaterials will be disposed of and
treated at the end of their use. They may find their way into landfills
or incinerators, and, eventually, into the air, soil, or water. When we
throw something away, there really is no ‘away,’
and this report takes a crucial step forward in analyzing how such
concerns can be addressed within the current legal
framework,” said David Rejeski, director of the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies.
Leslie Carothers, president of the Environmental Law
Institute, noted at the release of the report that, “the
end-of-life regulation of nanotechnology is a topic that must be
addressed now, before the EPA, other agencies, and the business
community are forced to respond to uncertainties in the law and its
interpretation without any guidance. Moreover, we must take a lifecycle
approach to managing the potential risks posed by engineered
nanomaterials which takes into account the full range of uses, from
production, to use, to disposal. We do not want a nanowaste problem to
be a legacy of this technology.”