Skip to main content

The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act: a model for nanomaterials regulation?

Journal of Nanoparticle Research volume 14, Article number: 1070 (2012) Cite this article

Abstract

Nanomaterials exemplify a new class of emerging technologies that have significant economic and social value, pose uncertain health and environmental risks, and are entering the marketplace at a rapid pace. Effective regimes for regulating emerging technologies generate information about known or suspected hazards and draw on private sector expertise to guide managers’ behavior toward risk reduction, even in the absence of clear evidence of harm. This paper considers the extent to which the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) accomplishes those objectives. It offers the approach of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) as a possible supplement to TSCA, filling gaps in agency knowledge and private sector capacities. TURA is notable for its focus on chemicals use and hazard and its emphasis on strengthening firms’ internal management systems. Given the current deadlock in Congressional efforts to modernize federal laws such as TSCA, the role of state laws like TURA merit attention. Absent definitive information about risk, a governance strategy that generates information and focuses management attention on reducing hazards is worth considering.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Applegate JS (1991) The perils of unreasonable risk: information, regulatory policy, and toxic substances control. Columbia Law Rev 91:261–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate JS (2008) Synthesizing TSCA and REACH: practical principles for chemical regulation reform. Ecol Law Quart 35:721–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergeson LL (2010) Nanotechnology: environmental law, policy, and business considerations. American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Chicago

  • Bergeson LL, Campbell L, Rothenberg L (2000) TSCA and the future of chemical regulation. EPA Adm Law Report 15(4):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley Municipal Ordinance (2007) Ordinance for nanoparticle disclosure.http://www.calcupa.net/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2305. Accessed 29 Dec 2010

  • Bomkamp S (2010) Beyond chemicals: the lessons that toxic substance regulatory reform can learn from nanotechnology. Indiana Law J Suppl 85:24–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C (2010) Engaging business in the regulation of nanotechnology. In: Bosso CJ (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 46–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1977) Environmental quality: the eighth annual report of the council on environmental quality. Government printing office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison RA (2007) High hopes low marks: a final report card on the high production volume chemical challenge. Environmental defense, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison RA (2008) Policy options for generating information about sound chemicals management. In: Tichner J (ed) Options for state chemicals policy reform: a resource guide. University of Massachusetts Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Lowell, MA, pp 35–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenbecker M, Tsai S (2010) Engineered nanoparticles: safer substitutes for toxic materials, or new hazard? J Cleaner Prod 19(5):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (1997) Toxic ignorance: the continuing absence of basic health testing for top-selling chemicals in the United States. Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty DC, Porter ME (2005) National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environ Dev Econ 10:391–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (2006) The new environmental regulation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (2010) Voluntary initiatives, regulation, and nanotechnology oversight: charting a path. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies No. 19. Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

  • Gold MV, Warshaw J (2010) The toxics substances control act: a practical guide. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood MA (2009) TSCA reform: building a program that can work. Environ Law Report News Anal 39:10034–10041

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman MJ (2010) Climate governance at the crossroads. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson LP (2009) Remarks to the commonwealth club of San Francisco, 29 September 2009. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/fc4e2a8c05343b3285257640007081c5!OpenDocument. Accessed 9 Aug 2011

  • Lindberg JE, Quinn MM (2007) A survey of environmental, health and safety risk management information needs and practices among nanotechnology firms in the Massachusetts region. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Brief No. 1. Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

  • Lok C (2010) Small wonders. Nature 467:18–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel G (2008) Nanotechnology governance. Ala Law Rev 59:1323–1384

    Google Scholar 

  • Markell D (2010) An overview of TSCA its history and key underlying assumptions and its place in environmental regulation. J Law Policy 32:333–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) (2009) Toxics use reduction planning and plan update guidance. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston

  • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) (2010) Toxics use reduction act data and results. http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/tura/turadata.htm. Accessed 12 Sept 2010

  • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) (2011). 2009 toxics use reduction information release. July 2011. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston

  • Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance & Technology (OTA) (2010) OTA technology guidance document: nanotechnology—considerations for safe development. OTA, Boston

  • Massey R (2009) Toxics use reduction act program assessment. Toxics use reduction institute methods and policy report #26. Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Lowell, MA

  • Morose G (2010) The 5 principles of “Design for Safer Nanotechnology”. J Cleaner Prod 18:285–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/. Accessed 21 Dec 2010

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2007) Strategic plan. http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_strategic_plan_2007.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2011

  • O’Rourke D, Lee E (2004) Mandatory planning for environmental innovation: evaluating regulatory mechanisms for toxics use reduction. J Environ Planning Manage 47(2):181–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2011) Woodrow Wilson International Center. Consumer products inventory of nanotechnology products. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/browse/. Accessed 21 Dec 2010

  • Roberts JA (2010) From inception to reform: an oral history project of the toxic substances control act. Center for Contemporary History and Policy, Chemical Heritage Foundation, Webinar

  • Rudd J (2008) Regulating the impacts of engineered nanoparticles under TSCA: shifting authority from industry to government. Columbia J Environ Law 33:215–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Schierow L-J (2007) Toxic substances control act (TSCA): implementation and new challenges. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaton A, Tran L, Aitken R, Donaldson K (2009) Nanoparticles, human health hazard, and regulation. R J Soc Interface. http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/Suppl_1/S119.full. Accessed 22 Nov 2011

  • Stavins RN (1997) Economic incentives for environmental regulation. The New Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=11487. Accessed 7 June 2012

  • Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) (2010) Decision-making under TURA: process overview and reference guide. Methods and policy report No. 28. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1976) Train sees new toxics substances law as preventive medicine. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/tsca/03.html. Accessed 9 Aug 2011

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1999) Endocrine disrupter screening and testing advisory committee, final report 2-11. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2009) Nanoscale materials stewardship report. Interim report. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2010a) Title III consolidated list of lists—May 2010 version. http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/tools.htm#lol. Accessed 11 Sept 2010

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2010b) EPA needs a coordinated plan to oversee its toxic substances control act responsibilities. Report no. 10-P-0066. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2011) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes: significant new use rule. 76 FR 26186. 6 May 2011

  • US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986) Serious reduction of hazardous waste. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2009) Chemical regulation: options for enhancing the effectiveness of the toxic substances control act. Statement of John Stephenson, director, natural resources and the environment, before the subcommittee on commerce, trade, and consumer protection, house of representatives. GAO-09-428T. US GAO, Washington, DC

  • US Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2010) Nanotechnology: nanomaterials are widely used in commerce, but EPA faces challenges in regulating risk. Report to the chairman, committee on environment and public works, US Senate. GAO-10-549. US GAO, Washington, DC

  • Wardak A (2003) Nanotechnology & regulation: a case study using the toxic substances control act (TSCA). Discussion paper 2003-6. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant #SES 0609078, Christopher J. Bosso, PI, and the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School. Thanks to Christopher J. Bosso and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. Any mistakes and omissions are the author’s.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Regulatory Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Jennifer Nash

Authors
  1. Jennifer Nash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Nash.

Additional information

Special Issue Editors: Candace S.-J. Tsai, Michael J. Ellenbecker

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nash, J. The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act: a model for nanomaterials regulation?. J Nanopart Res 14, 1070 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1070-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1070-7

Keywords

  • Regulation
  • Policy
  • Environmental protection
  • Environmental management