Environmental Defense Fund: Finding the Ways That Work

DuPont

Feedback from ISRI

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.

Posted on: March 30, 2007

On behalf of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI), I would like to offer for your consideration the following comments on the February 26, 2007 draft of your “Environmental Defense – DuPont Nano Risk Framework” (henceforth, “ED–DP Nano Risk Framework”).

ISRI is the “Voice of the Recycling Industry.” With 21 chapters nationwide and headquarters in Washington, D.C., ISRI represents more than 1,400 companies that process, broker, and consume scrap commodities, including metals, paper, plastics, glass, rubber, electronics, and textiles. ISRI provides education, advocacy, and compliance training, and promotes public awareness of the value and importance of recycling to the production of the world’s goods and services. In 2006, the latest year with complete figures, the industry processed more than 145 million tons of scrap materials, conserving impressive amounts of energy and natural resources.

Introduction

By way of background, the scrap-processing industry recovers valuable materials from end-of-life (EOL) items (e.g., used cars and computers) and returns the recovered materials to productive economic use. Over the past several years, nanotech issues have been looming larger for our industry and members. This trend seems particularly evident in light of the growing quantity of scrap electronics recycled each year (750,000 tons in 2006).

One of the more-challenging aspects of our industry is that our members process EOL items that we did not design in terms of material composition and item assembly. The first factor entails the possible presence of materials that pose environmental and/or safety hazards during recycling. The second factor entails items that are assembled in a fashion that impedes recycling because of a variety of factors such as incompatible and/or inseparable materials. Both of these factors could conceivably involve nanotech (i.e., nanomaterials).

About 20 years ago, because of these general recyclability issues, ISRI introduced its Design for Recycling® (DfR) policy. The goal of DfR is to encourage preproduction planning for safe and efficient product recycling via the elimination of hazardous and nonrecyclable materials from production and manufacturing processes. DfR includes the following broad principles:

  1. Making Consumer Products Recyclable
  2. Reducing Health and Environmental Risks from Consumer Products
  3. Controlling Special Environmental Problems
  4. Assisting Manufacturers of Consumer Durables

DfR will be helpful in avoiding the potential risks associated with recycling nanomaterials1, or EOL items containing them, as well as with producing nanomaterials, manufacturing products containing them, using such products, and disposing of any unrecyclable EOL materials.

The Environmental Defense – DuPont Nano Risk Framework

Our comments on your ED-DP Nano Risk Framework are divided into two parts: the Framework and the document.

First, ISRI finds that your six-step Framework is quite comprehensive and is pleased that the Framework is wholly compatible with DfR. We appreciate that Step 2 (“Profile Lifecycle(s)”) requires the user to consider “the nanomaterial’s full lifecycle from material sourcing, through production and use, to end-of-life disposal or recycling” (page 13). We are further encouraged by Steps 5 (“Decide, Document, and Act”) and 6 (“Review and Adapt”) for increasing communication among recyclers, producers, and manufacturers to enable information-sharing and joint problem-solving. These steps in particular will help to reduce or eliminate the potential health and environmental risks from EOL nanomaterials, whether alone or as part of an EOL item. We would look forward to working with producers and manufacturers in this endeavor, realizing DfR via this Framework.

Second, ISRI notes that, despite the comprehensiveness of the Framework, the report omits in certain places references to recycling where it would be appropriate. In most of these cases, as illustrated by the following examples, there is a discussion of, or an allusion to, “product lifecycle” that does not include recycling but does include disposal:

“The intent of this Framework is to define a systematic and disciplined process for identifying, managing, and reducing potential environmental, health, and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials across all stages of a product’s “lifecycle” — its full life from initial sourcing through manufacture, use, disposal, and ultimate fate.” (page 5)

“The term ‘material,’ as used in this document, applies to such nanoscale particles, either in their original form or as ingredients in products from which they could be released during downstream activities, including disposal.” (page 6)

Other similar occurrences include the following:

  • “High Potential Exposure” in “Box 1” (page 24);
  • “Environmental Releases” in “Box 6” (page 51);
  • First paragraph of “Step 4. Assess Risk Management” (page 57);
  • Last sentence of “Assess adequacy of current controls for reducing identified potential risks” (page 58);
  • Seventh bullet of “Assess adequacy of current controls for reducing identified potential risks” (page 59)
  • Last paragraph of “Determine best risk management options” (page 60);
  • Third bullet about risk-communication audiences (page 70);
  • “Material Safety and Handling (end-product user)” (Output Worksheet, Page 13); and
  • “Material Safety and Handling (end of life)” (Output Worksheet, Page 14)

In these cases, adding a reference to recycling, as appropriate, would complete the range lifecycle activities, as well as give recycling greater visibility as a viable and preferable alternative to disposal. In fact, notwithstanding TSCA’s likely primary role in nanomaterial regulation (not a trivial matter), planning for recycling as the default EOL option instead of disposal could provide significant sustainability and other regulatory benefits.

With regard to recycling versus disposal (or waste management), ISRI would like to point out that the “Recycle/Waste Management” paragraph on page 22 contains contradictory statements. The first sentence distinguishes recycling from waste management; however, the second sentence erases this distinction by listing recycling as a “post-consumer waste-management option”, along with composting and incineration. In ISRI’s view, recycling is not disposal, and scrap is not waste (RCRA also distinguishes recycling from disposal at 40 CFR 261.2). The simplest remedy here would be to strike “recycling” from the second sentence.

In summary, ISRI finds that your ED-DP Nano Risk Framework provides an excellent starting point for managing the risks posed by nanomaterials before they are introduced into commerce and congratulates you and those who assisted you on your efforts here. ISRI would like to thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.

Most Sincerely,

David L. Wagger, Ph.D.
Director of Environmental Management
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.

1 Here, the term “nanomaterials” refers only to nanomaterials that are not intended to interact with the human body or environment. Such nanomaterials would include, for example, nanowires in electronic devices, but neither lipid nanoparticles in skincare cosmetics nor nanoscale zero-valent iron for in-situ groundwater remediation.