[Pharmwaste] POTWs: Big Trouble with Nanowaste

[DeBiasi,Deborah]

http://www.eponline.com/


POTWs: Big Trouble with Nanowaste

By Angela Neville, JD, REM

Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) use an amazing arsenal of
equipment to prevent large troublemakers, such as animal carcasses and
tree limbs, from entering their wastewater treatment processes. However,
they don't yet have the necessary technology to keep out nanoparticles,
which some worry could have a much worse impact on the quality of the
water these plants treat.

Just as it is hard to understand how big the potential problems with
nanotechnology could be, it's also difficult to fully comprehend how
small "nano" really is. Defined as one billionth of a meter, a nanometer
is one-hundredthousandth the width of a human hair. Much of the concern
is based on how compounds change when they are nano size. For example,
at the nano level, some compounds shift from inert to active, from
electrical insulators to conductors, from fragile to tough. They can
become stronger, lighter, or more resilient. These transformed
properties are what account for the infinite variety of applications of
nanoparticles, which are defined as anything less than about 100
nanometers in diameter.

The concern is that nanomaterials could affect water and air quality in
areas where these compounds are dispersed. At this time, very little is
known about nanotoxicology, which might be quite different from the
toxicology of the same materials at normal scale. For example, Vicki
Colvin, a chemist at Rice University, said recently that the usual way
to assess toxicity, by measuring a toxin's mass, won't work at the nano
level. Nanomaterials have a much higher surface-to-mass ratio, and while
this makes them good for such purposes as water filtering, it just as
well could cause them to interact with human body cells that their
extremely small size allows them to infiltrate.

A newly released report, "Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Regulation
of Nanotechnologies," (http://www.nanotechproject.org)focuses on how
little information there is on the environmental fate and effects of
nanomaterialcontaining wastes. The report was written by environmental
law experts Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass of the Environmental Law
Institute and was commissioned by the Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, an initiative of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts. . "POTWs are on the
front lines, and they're not getting enough information," said
Pendergrass on July 26 at a briefing when the report was officially
released.

Liquid waste disposed of in waters treated by POTWs is exempt from
regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
according to Pendergrass. The rationale is that regulations issued under
the Clean Water Act would address those wastes.

Pendergrass commented that some private manufacturers of nanotechnology
products, especially small start-up companies, may be pouring some
liquid wastes containing nanomaterials into the public sewage system
without the knowledge of the impacted POTWs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already begun taking action
related to the manufacture of nanotechnology. In November 2006, the
agency stated it would regulate nanoscale silver used in washing
machines to kill bacteria. EPA's action was prompted by POTW managers
and operators who worried the nanosilver could be released into
wastewater by washing machines that contain this nanomaterial.
Under RCRA regulations, a waste generator is required to share with the
firm that treats its waste any information it has that will help the
waste handler manage it safely, Pendergrass said.
In contrast to actions mandated under RCRA, according to Pendergrass, a
company or research institute that is releasing liquid waste with
nanomaterials in it is not required to provide POTWs with information to
ensure they are working safely with those wastes.

Just as the debate about the possible dark side of nanotechnology has
rapidly heated up, so has the commercial success of this new technology.
More than $30 billion in products incorporating nanotechnology were sold
globally in 2005. By 2014, Lux Research estimates this figure will grow
to $2.6 trillion.
Nowadays, 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 end up in our POTWs, landfills, or
incinerators, and, consequently, in our water, soil, or air. Responding
to such growing concerns about nanotechnology, EPA has launched its
Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. 

We still have much to learn about the potential risks to human health
and the environment posed by nanotechnology and its byproducts. So
important is this issue that the ultimate success or failure of this
exciting new technology may possibly depend on how fully these issues
are addressed. Only when these concerns are resolved can our society in
good conscience promote the development of nanotechnology in an
environmentally sustainable manner.

Angela Neville, JD, REM, editorial director of Environmental Protection,
has been a licensed Texas lawyer since 1980 and a registered
environmental manager through the National Registry of Environmental
Professionals since 1995. She can be contacted at
aneville at 1105media.com.

http://www.eponline.com/Stevens/EPPub.nsf/frame?open&redirect=http://www
.eponline.com/stevens/eppub.nsf/PubArchive?openview

***********

New Inventory Of Research Into Nanotechnology's Health, Environmental
Effects

A new inventory of research into nanotechnology's potential
environmental, human health, and safety effects (EH&S) shows the need
for more resources, for a coherent risk-related research strategy, and
for public-private partnerships and international EH&S research
collaborations. These are the key conclusions drawn from the first
single inventory of largely government-funded research projects
exploring nanotechnology's possible EH&S impacts, the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars announced on Nov. 30.

The inventory is publicly available online at
http://www.nanotechproject.org or http://www.wilsoncenter.org/nano. It
was compiled and released by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The project is a
partnership of The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Wilson Center.

"For the first time, policymakers, corporations and others can access
and assess the scope, quality and efficacy of federally-funded research
projects examining nanotechnology's potential human health and
environmental effects. The inventory gives government officials and
scientists in industry and academe the opportunity to work together. It
enables them to develop a coherent research roadmap and to set research
priorities. It helps makes possible the planning necessary to create
public-private sector partnerships and international collaborations for
risk-related nanotechnology research programs in the future," said Dr.
Andrew Maynard, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' chief
scientist.

Too Little Being Spent on Future Effects of Nano Toxicity

Total U.S. spending on all nanotechnology research and development (R&D)
now stands at approximately $3 billion per year-about one-third of the
estimated $9 billion invested worldwide by the public and private
sectors combined.

"The federal government's National Nanotechnology Initiative estimates
that approximately $39 million annually in government funds-out of total
expenditures of about $1 billion-are directed at environmental, health,
and safety R&D. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory
identifies about $27 million currently being spent by the U.S.
government to explore possible adverse health, environmental and safety
impacts of engineered nanomaterials or nanoparticles," Maynard said.
"That limited investment is focused on research into human toxicity
studies and some direct environmental impacts. Very little is being
spent to investigate common workplace safety issues like the risk of
explosion in production of nanopowders."

"In addition, most of this investment focuses on first generation
nanotechnologies, many of which are already in the marketplace.
Virtually none deals with future generations of nanomaterials," Maynard
said.

Little funding is allocated to explore possible links between exposure
to nanomaterials and diseases of the lung, heart or skin. Similar to
last year's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study (July
2004), the Project's scientists are not able to identify U.S.
government-sponsored epidemiological research looking at the
relationship between exposure and possible long-term health outcomes
during the manufacture of nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes.

"Specifically, out of a total of 161 federally-funded, risk-related
projects, the Project's scientists found only 15 relevant to
occupation-caused physical injury (totaling $1.7 million), and only two
highly relevant projects on the long-term environmental and occupational
exposures that potentially could cause disease (totaling $0.2 million).
These are important gaps that must be filled to ensure that
nanotechnology is safely commercialized and accepted by the public as
not harmful," Maynard said. "In particular, more research is needed to
address the potential life-cycle impacts of nanotechnology-based
products as they move from manufacture to use and to eventual disposal."

Inventory Is Critical Start, But Global Action Is Needed

"This first inventory is not comprehensive, but it is the best
available, detailed and scientifically-classified collection of data
about nanotechnology EH&S risk-related research that exists either
inside or outside government," Maynard said. "It is intended to be
international and expanding, and will be regularly updated."

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies director David Rejeski noted that
"Some experts suggest that existing funding for risk-related
nanotechnology research must be doubled or tripled. Realistically, no
single country is likely to have adequate resources to cover all risk
assessment needs, especially as nanotechnologies advance and become more
complex and pervasive. What is clear from the inventory is that
increased funding must be associated with an overarching research
strategy and partnerships, if critical issues are to be addressed with
'due diligence'."









Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Programs
Industrial Pretreatment/Toxics Management Program
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218 (NEW!)
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028
FAX:      804-698-4032