Hi everyone,

The EPA Inspector General's office that oversees EPA recently put out a report titled:  EPA Needs to Manage Nanomaterial Risks More Effectively.  This report was issued December 29, 2011, and is only 28 pages.  You can download at:   http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2012/20121229-12-P-0162.pdf

I have tried to pass along articles and information as I find them regarding Nanopollutants (what we call it when the wastewater is discharged to the sewers) and a connection to the pretreatment program.  There is a LOT of research and manufacturing going on with various nanomaterials.  Many POTWs are sitting back and waiting for EPA.  Well, you see the effluent guidelines plan reopened for comment (see last CWACS Pretreatment Blog)? 

Should the agency create a new Effluent Guidelines (Categorical Standards) for these type of manufacturing processes?  I know the Agency likes to try to force new technology into existing categories, but the Agency already set the precedent for allowing a new business focus to exclude itself from regulation (remember Biodiesel?).  Not the Agency's finest moments.  I reread the EPA guidance memo (available on my website) again this morning.  I still shake my head and wonder "Who....?".       

This IG Report confirms the observations that almost nothing is being implemented regarding knowing the risks of nanopollutants before being released into the environment.  In EPA's defense, they have drafted a couple of regulations under FIFRA (pesticides) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  These regulations have sitting in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the quasi-political stop for regulations that is used by special interests in the rule making process (non-partisan: all special interests try to use the OMB).  However, the IG reports makes it clear the Agency can do more (in an election year?) than try to propose these two regulations.  As the report states, EPA's management risks from nanomaterials is doubtful for a number of reasons:

1.  EPA Program offices do not have a formal process to coordinate the dissemination and utilization of the potentially mandated information.

2.  EPA is not communicating an overall message to external stakeholders regarding policy changes and the risks of nanomaterials.

3.  EPA proposes to regulate nanomaterials as chemicals and its success in managing nanomaterials will be linked to the existing limitations of those applicable statutes.

4.  EPA’s management of nanomaterials is limited by lack of risk information and reliance on industry-submitted data.

The report is clear that nanomaterials are manufactured and released to the environment without sufficient information on risks to human health or the environment.  The Agency does not require this information to be reported.

What can POTWs do?  First, I think every POTW should be asking for Categorical Standards be developed for the Nanotechnology Sector (yes, it's own sector).  Second, I believe that Pretreatment Programs should be asking for a lot more information from any industry that manufactures nanomaterials and discharge to the POTW.  A few examples of local POTWs that have had some kind of concern about nanopollutants include:

Maybe there are other POTWs out there that have done something (I found these last summer).  I think that a very detailed industrial waste survey checklist should be used by POTWs that collects detailed pollutant and manufacturing information (think about how you would really secure this CBI information since this is more highly desired by criminals than what kind of plating bath mixture is used). 

The POTW should strongly consider requiring the collection of toxicity information.  If POTWs and Industrial direct dischargers have to do WET tests, why can't these nanopollutant discharger do WET tests (both fish and Ceriodaphnia?).  Maybe instead of a WET test, maybe a bioassay on the nanomaterial itself.  I like WET effluent tests because that data is never Confidential Business Information. 

I recognize that a lot of other IU dischargers may not pass WET tests due pollutants (ammonia, chlorine, metals).  However, we understand those pollutants, we know what pollutant concentrations are needed to avoid Pass Through or Interference, and we know how to analyze for the presence of these pollutants and determine removal efficiencies.  W also have pretty decent information on ecological impacts.  Not so for Nanopollutants. 

I have a checklist I use, but it is generally filled out specific to the type of nanomaterial produced by the industrial user.  If you have a checklist you use specifically for these types of dischargers, send it to me.  I will try to get something created and posted on the website in the future.     

---

Curt McCormick, CWACS, www.POTW.com  Curt@POTW.com

Over 600 subscribers and sunny here in Broncos Country!

---

I did turn on Allow Comments.  I do not always do this because the incredible amount of SPAM that comes in when you allow comments.  You can always email me directly.  Thanks!