DRAFT -8/14/07 EPA/Environmental Defense Meeting Summary

Richard Denison of Environmental Defense (ED) requested to meet with
OPPT to present ED’s views regarding EPA’s proposed Nanoscale
Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) and EPA’s approach for
determining new versus existing chemical nanoscale materials under TSCA.
 ED highlighted three areas for discussion: 1) EPA’s approach for
determining new versus existing chemical nanoscale materials under TSCA;
2) applicability of SNURs to nanoscale materials; and 3) use of TSCA
section 8(a) reporting rules for nanoscale materials.

1. New vs Existing Chemicals: ED and EPA discussed how EPA applies
“molecular identity” to determine whether a chemical substance is on
the TSCA Inventory.  ED raised the use of factors other than chemical
structure (e.g., process, physical/chemical properties) that have been
considered by EPA in TSCA Inventory determinations for UVCB chemical
mixtures.  OPPT explained how it applies information on specific
properties, such as vapor pressure and boiling point, to further
describe the differences between complex but chemically distinct UVCB
chemical mixtures and noted that this approach was not really analogous
to considering particle size for Inventory determinations.  OPPT
discussed examples of nanoscale materials that would likely be
considered new chemicals, e.g., carbon nanotubes, and those that likely
would be considered existing chemicals, e.g., anatase form of TiO2.  ED
raised quantum dots and other examples and whether these would be new or
existing chemicals.  OPPT said it is difficult to answer such questions
generally and that detailed information would be needed. 

2. SNURs: OPPT and ED discussed how new and existing chemical SNURs
could be applied to nanoscale materials and the “triggers” or
statutory factors (e.g., extent to which a use changes the type, form,
or magnitude of exposure, manner and methods of manufacture or
processing, etc) that are considered under TSCA section 5(a)(2).  ED
asked why SNURs weren’t explained further in the NMSP paper.  OPPT
replied that its approach was to engage in an open discussion in
designing the NMSP rather than put out a detailed proposal.  OPPT also
indicated that the information from the NMSP and the new chemical
notices will inform our understanding of nanoscale materials and our
ability to use the SNUR authority.  ED asked about several SNURs that
used properties/size in the trigger and noted a 2007 SNUR that used
particle size.  ED indicated it will provide views on the use of SNURs
in its written comments. 

3. TSCA Section 8(a) Reporting: ED discussed its view of the value of
using section 8(a) reporting as a backstop for the NMSP and to further
our understanding of how many and what types of nanoscale materials are
in or soon to enter into commerce.  ED said that a voluntary NMSP will
likely give a skewed view of nanoscale materials in the market as not
all manufacturers will participate.  ED discussed the idea of a tailored
PAIR-type section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials and the
need to consider the issue of the exemption for small businesses.  ED
indicated it will provide written comments to EPA on this point. 

