TY - JOUR
T1 - Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies
AU - Powell, Maria C
AU - Griffin, Martin P A
AU - Tai, Stephanie
PY - 2008/9
Y1 - 2008/9
N2 - Nanotechnologies have been called the "Next Industrial Revolution." At the same time, scientists are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental risks related to the nano-sized materials used in nanotechnologies. Analyses suggest that current U.S. federal regulatory structures are not likely to adequately address these risks in a proactive manner. Given these trends, the premise of this paper is that state and local-level agencies will likely deal with many "end-of-pipe" issues as nanomaterials enter environmental media without prior toxicity testing, federal standards, or emissions controls. In this paper we (1) briefly describe potential environmental risks and benefits related to emerging nanotechnologies; (2) outline the capacities of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to address potential nanotechnology risks, and how risk data gaps challenge these regulations; (3) outline some of the key data gaps that challenge state-level regulatory capacities to address nanotechnologies' potential risks, using Wisconsin as a case study; and (4) discuss advantages and disadvantages of state versus federal approaches to nanotechnology risk regulation. In summary, we suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management.
AB - Nanotechnologies have been called the "Next Industrial Revolution." At the same time, scientists are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental risks related to the nano-sized materials used in nanotechnologies. Analyses suggest that current U.S. federal regulatory structures are not likely to adequately address these risks in a proactive manner. Given these trends, the premise of this paper is that state and local-level agencies will likely deal with many "end-of-pipe" issues as nanomaterials enter environmental media without prior toxicity testing, federal standards, or emissions controls. In this paper we (1) briefly describe potential environmental risks and benefits related to emerging nanotechnologies; (2) outline the capacities of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to address potential nanotechnology risks, and how risk data gaps challenge these regulations; (3) outline some of the key data gaps that challenge state-level regulatory capacities to address nanotechnologies' potential risks, using Wisconsin as a case study; and (4) discuss advantages and disadvantages of state versus federal approaches to nanotechnology risk regulation. In summary, we suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management.
KW - environmental exposure
KW - environmental health
KW - environmental monitoring
KW - environmental pollution
KW - humans
KW - nanotechnology
KW - risk assessment
KW - risk management
KW - United States
KW - United States Environmental Protection Agency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=49749124208&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.springerlink.com/content/j453163328217214/
U2 - 10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z
DO - 10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 18543023
SN - 0364-152X
VL - 42
SP - 426
EP - 443
JO - Environmental Management
JF - Environmental Management
IS - 3
ER -