United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 5
Superfund Division
EPA 905K07001
December 2007
Proceedings of the Nanotechnology
     Site Remediation Workshop
             September 6-7,2006


                   Proceedings of the
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop
                     September 6-7, 2006
     United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
                       Chicago, Illinois
                          Edited by:

                    Charles G. Maurice, Ph.D.
     Office of Research & Development and Region 5 Superfund Division
            United States Environmental Protection Agency


                      Warren Layne Ph.D.
                   Region 5 Superfund Division
            United States Environmental Protection Agency

The workshop co-chairs would like to thank R5-SFD and ORD-OSP management for their
enthusiastic morale and financial support of this endeavor. This hugely successful and
productive workshop was possible only through their keen interest in nanotechnology and their
anticipation of the importance of this emerging field of technology. Specifically in R5-SFD, we
would like to thank Rick Karl (Division Director), Jim Mayka (Innovative Systems &
Technologies Branch Chief), and Steve Ostrodka (Field Services Section Chief).  In ORD-OSP,
we would like to thank Kevin Teichman (Office Director), Jeff Morris (Office Associate
Director), and Paul Zielinski (Cross Program Branch Chief).  Pam Gallichio (R5-SFD) played a
crucial role in the final production of this document.

We would also like to thank all the speakers for their high quality and extremely informative
presentations and discussions. Finally, we would like to thank Bernie Orenstein (R5-SFD) for
his valuable assistance in managing our contracted conference support from Booze, Allen, &
Hamilton who provided logistical support for the workshop and the initial rough draft of these

The artist rendition of the molecular structure of Mercury-bound SAMMS on the cover was used
with the permission of Dr. Shas Mattigod, PNL.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                 \\

                              List of Acronyms Used

ARAR      applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
BNP        bimetallic nanoscale particle
CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
DCA        dichloroethane
DCE        dichloroethene
Dept.        department
DfE        design for environment
DNAPL     dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DOE        Department of Energy
DOD        Department of Defense
EH&S      environmental health and safety
EPA        United States Environmental Protection Agency
EZVI       emulsified zerovalent iron
FET        field effect transistor
GAC        granular activated carbon
LCA        life cycle assessment
MCL        maximum contaminant level
MFA        materials/substance flow analysis
MRNIP     modified reactive nanoscale iron particle
MWNT     multi-wall nanotube
NAES      Naval Air Engineering Station
NAPL      non-aqueous phase liquid
NAS        Naval Air Station
NCER      National Center for Environmental Research
nZVI        nanoscale zerovalent iron
ORD        Office of Research and Development
OSP        Office of Science Policy
OSRTI      Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
P2          pollution prevention
PAH        polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCE        perchloroethene
ppb         parts per billion
ppm        parts per million
PRB        permeable reactive barrier
psi          pounds per square inch
R5          Region 5
RCRA      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RNA        ribonucleic acid
RNIP       reactive nanoscale iron particle
RPM        remedial project manager
SAMMS    self-assembled monolayers  on mesoporous silica
SET AC     Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SFD        Superfund Division
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop

SVOC      semi-volatile organic compound
SWNT      single wall nanotube
TCA       trichloroethane
TCE        trichloroethene
TIFSD      Technology Innovation and Field Services Division
Univ.       university
VC         vinyl chloride
VOC       volatile organic compound
ZVI        zerovalent iron
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop

During October 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a
successful 2-day national Superfund nanotechnology site remediation conference, with assistance
from partner federal agency cosponsors.  This initial conference was held in Washington, DC.
The conference had plenary and breakout sessions where experts in nanotechnology site
remediation partook in platform presentations and panel discussions.

The 2004 conference was followed in 2006 with a 2-day national site remediation workshop,
jointly sponsored by the EPA Region 5 (R5) and the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD).  This workshop is the subject of these Proceedings and targeted Superfund remedial
project managers (RPMs) at the R5 offices in Chicago, Illinois.  The workshop was attended by
close to 100 participants.  During the first day, the workshop focused on nanomaterials
applications to remediate hazardous waste sites, whereas during the second day, the focus was on
environmental implications of nanomaterials.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                               Table of Contents
Welcome to the Workshop	1
    Charles Maurice -EPA ORD-OSP/RS-SFD
    Warren Layne -EPARS-SFD
    Rick Karl -EPARS-SFD

Introduction to Nanotechnology for Site Remediation	1
    Wei-Xian Zhang -Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lehigh Univ.

Worldwide Nanotechnology Status	2
    Barbara Karn -EPA ORD-NCER

Cases of Nanotechnology Use at Superfund Sites	4
    Martha Otto -EPA OSWER-OSRTI
    Mary Logan -EPARS-SFD

Panel Session 1: Zerovalent Iron Nanoparticles	9
    Wei-Xian Zhang -Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lehigh Univ.
    Paul Tratnyek —Dept. of Environmental & Biomolecular Systems, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science & Technology
    Krishna Reddy -Dept. of Civil & Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

Panel Session 2: Various Nanoparticles	12
    Erica rOrzani  —Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Center for Solid State Electronics Research, Arizona State Univ.
    ShaS Mattigod -DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Applied Geology & Geochemistry
Nanotechnology Life-Cycle Analysis	14
    Barbara Karn -EPA ORD-NCER

Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology	16
    Aatish Salvi - Vice President, Nanobusiness Alliance

Panel Session 3: Nanotechnology Risks	18
    Crreg Lowry —Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
    Shane Joumeay - Univ. a/Saskatchewan
    Joyce Tsuji -Exponent, Health & Science Practice
           Mowat -Exponent, Health & Science Practice
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Panel Session 4: Human Health Impacts	22
    Yvan Wenger - School of Public Health, Univ. of Michigan
    OllVier Jolliet -Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences, Univ. a/Michigan
    Martin Philbeit - School of Public Health, Univ. of Michigan
ATTACHMENT 1: Workshop Agenda

ATTACHMENT 2: Speaker Biographies

ATTACHMENT 3: Participant List
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                   vii


                               Welcome to the Workshop

Workshop co-chairs, Drs. Charles Maurice (EPA ORD-OSP/R5-SFD) and Warren Layne (EPA
R5-SFD), welcomed the participants to Chicago and to the Nanotechnology for Site Remediation
Workshop.  Dr. Maurice explained that the two major goals of the workshop were to (1) identify
how nanotechnology can be used at Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) hazardous waste sites; and (2) explore potential environmental implications associated
with the use of nanotechnology. Dr. Maurice also reviewed the packet materials given to each
participant and outlined the agenda for the day, which included both platform presentations and
panel sessions.

Mr. Rick Karl (Director, EPA R5-SFD) explained that Region 5 is the first region to host a
nanotechnology environmental site remediation and risk workshop.  EPA is always looking at
innovative applications of new technologies to allow the development of more efficient site
remediation.  Applications arising from the use of nanotechnological methods and materials may
provide this increased efficiency in site remediation. Mr. Karl explained that Nanotechnology
involves the use of materials with at least one dimension being 1-100 nm. Because of their
unique physical and chemical properties, these substances are being used in hundreds of different
products already available to the public, including ski equipment, stain repellants, medicines, and
cosmetics.  With this new technology, however,  comes the possibility of potential risks to human
health and the environment, topics to be discussed on day 2 of the workshop. Mr. Karl closed by
stating the EPA is interested in pilot projects as well as working with academia through the
support of research grants to delve deeper into the development, understanding, and use of
nanotechnology to solve environmental problems.

Dr. Maurice introduced the day's first speaker, Dr. Wei-Xian Zhang.
                  Introduction to Nanotechnology for Site Remediation

Nanotechnology for Dummies
Wei-Xian Zhang, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lehigh Univ.

This introductory presentation began with a nanotechnology overview. The properties of
nanoparticles, nanomaterials, and their structures were presented. Nanoresearch and
nanotechnology are conducted at the atomic, molecular, and macromolecular levels. A
nanoparticle is defined by ASTM as an object with at least one dimension in the 1-100
nanometer (nm) range. Nanotechnology is the creation and use of structures, devices, and
systems that have novel properties because of their small size and very large surface area. These
unique properties have a great potential to enable scientists to control and manipulate matter and
energy on the atomic scale.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Nanomaterials may be classified according to the type of materials of which they are composed
(i.e., metal, ceramic, glass, crystals, macromolecules, biostructures), properties
 (e.g.: conductivity (electrical, thermal, optical), magnetic, optical, or chemical reactivity), or
applications (e.g.: electronic, chemical sensing, medical, and environmental).

The two aspects of nanotechnology of interest to the EPA are applications and implications.
Applications are responsive to existing problems or proactive in preventing future problems.
Applications include chemical sensing, treatment, remediation, green manufacturing, and the
production of green energy. Implications are the potential consequences of interactions of
nanomaterials with the environment and possible  ecological and human exposure risks that may
be posed by the use of nanotechnology. Expected environmental interactions  of chemically
synthesized nanomaterials include fate/transport/transformation, lifecycle aspects, toxicity, and

Some new areas of investigation in nanotechnology are: surface effects of nanomaterials,
synthesis and properties of nanotubes, nanoreactors, catalytic effects, photochemical
transformations, nanosensors, quantum size effects, atomic-scale gaps, and the use of electrical
birefringence (EB) biopolymers and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to assemble and align
nanostructures (self-assembly).

Some types of nanoparticles may have a potential for harm to human health and the environment.
Nanotechnology may  create waste with new disposal and recycling issues,  release hazardous
materials into the  environment, lead to biological  harm by possibly penetrating and accumulating
in cellular material, or facilitate transport of toxic materials in the environment. Risk
identification, forecasting, communication, and education are important. It is  also necessary to
understand any potential gaps:  1) in knowledge: due to the highly interdisciplinary nature of
nanoscale science and engineering; 2) in tools: conventional environmental labs are not equipped
for nanoscale work; and 3) in education: new courses/labs/programs are necessary to educate the
next generation of nanotechnology researchers.
                            Worldwide Nanotechnology Status

National Nanotechnology: Science from the Top-Down and the Bottom-Up
Barbara Karn, EPA ORD-NCER

Nanotechnology is not an entirely new technology.  Scientists started looking at materials at the
nanoscale level in the 1980s because microscopes were developed that were capable of viewing
nanoscale particles. However, it has only been in more recent years (late 1990s) that
nanotechnology really began to take off.

In the context of science, physicists deal with subatomic particles and chemists deal with atoms
and molecules.  Many substances fit the definition of nanomaterials, so diverse industries are
involved with nanotechnology (e.g., automotive, sports materials, medical, and cosmetic).
Nanotechnology is an enabling technology, not one that necessarily stands alone.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

It is important to keep in mind that nanotechnology does not include just a single material or
class of materials, nor does it include just a single industry or industrial sector. Rather,
nanotechnology converges with other technologies such as biochemistry, information
technology, and cognitive sciences. Molecular manufacturing may be the ultimate
nanotechnology, and has the potential to revolutionize our industries.  There are, however, many
fundamental issues and questions to consider and resolve. For instance, which chemicals and
material forms (i.e., homogeneous, heterogeneous, crystals, agglomerates,  aggregates) are the
best to use for a specific application; what are the levels of risks versus benefits; what should be
used as standards and how should they be made; and how should nanomaterials be measured?

Under the context of industry, it is all about nanoparticle/nanomaterial properties (e.g., size,
thermal, electronic, optical, magnetic, biological, wetting, mechanical) and how they can be
applied (e.g., wear protection of machinery, antifouling, corrosion protection, fabrication of
biocompatible implants, ultra-thin dielectrics, photo- and electro-chromic windows.  The long-
term view for the national nanotechnology initiative is certainly progressive.  The National
Science Foundation (NSF) estimates that by 2010 to 2015 approximately $1.1 trillion will be
spent on nanotechnology. NSF predicts the following partitioning of this $1.1 trillion estimate to
be in the following fields: 31 percent materials,  28 percent electronics, 17 percent
Pharmaceuticals, 9 percent chemical manufacturing, 6 percent aerospace, and 9 percent other.

The course of responsible research and development of nanotechnology will proceed in one of
two ways. The first is for nanotechnology to be "inherently continuous", meaning current laws,
institutions, science, and regulatory systems may be adequate to address the potential impacts  of
nanotechnology. The second option is that nanotechnology is "inherently disruptive ", meaning
that there are novel properties that only become evident at the nanoscale. This possibility would
require new, flexible approaches to quickly respond to developments.

Nanotechnology products and applications are extremely diverse.  Some among the hundreds of
examples are paving, painting, contaminated site remediation, self-cleaning glass, and cosmetics.
A list of consumer products can be found at http://www.nanotechproj ect.org.  As of September
2005, the sector distribution of approximately 1,150 nanoproducts was: 38 percent materials, 23
percent industry, 15 percent testing and measurements, 7 percent end-user products, and 2
percent biomedical applications.  The following are just a few of the major companies with
nanoproducts on the market today: L'Oreal, Nikon, Sony, Miller Brewing, Intel, General Motors,
Southern Clay, Levi-Strauss, Nike, Toyota, DuPont, Honeywell, Revlon, and 3M. In the
electronics industry, some products involved with nanotechnology include: batteries, solar cells,
data memory, lightweight polymer composites,  flame retardants, filters, fuel cells, laser diodes,
capacitors, optical switches, and fiber optics.

On December 3, 2003, the United States Government institutionalized nanotechnology with
Senate Bill 189 (S. 189), the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) invests in fundamental research to advance both the
understanding of nanoscale phenomena and the facilitation of technology transfer. The White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is at the top of the NNI administrative
structure and leads the interagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)
Committee.  The members of the NSET Committee provide feedback to their respective
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

independent agencies and departments.  The independent agencies include the EPA, Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).  The departments include Homeland Security
(DHS), Health and Human Services (DHHS), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), Energy
(DOE), Justice (DOJ), State (DOS), Transportation (DOT), Treasury (DOTreas), and Agriculture

The NNI's vision is "a future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the
nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry." One of the major goals of the NNI
is to support responsible development of nanotechnology. This "responsible development" of
nanotechnology has been divided into two categories: (1) environmental, health, and safety
implications, and (2) ethical, legal, and all other societal issues. Because the NNI realized that
new technology innovations can bring both benefits and risks to society, they have made
research on, and deliberation of, these two areas a priority (Strategic Plan, 2004). Consequently,
the EPA is acting as the conscience of the NNI to protect the environment and human health.

More information about the NNI and its Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.nano.gov .
                     Cases of Nanotechnology Use at Superfund Sites

Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron Field-Scale and Full-Scale Studies

Nanotechnology has potential applications for site remediation that include in-situ injection of
nanoscale zerovalent iron (nZVI) particles into source areas of groundwater contamination.
Research shows that nanotechnology may work for contaminants such as chlorinated
hydrocarbons, metals, and pesticides. We have information on over 15 field-scale studies where
nZVI was tested. Two of the EPA sites with field studies being conducted in 2006 are the
Tuboscope Site in Alaska and the Nease Chemical Company Site in Ohio.  There are also two
field studies (i.e., NASA's Launch Complex 34 in Florida and a Parris Island site in South
Carolina) where nanoscale emulsified zerovalent iron (EZVI) was tested.

At the Tuboscope Site, between 1978 and 1982, workers cleaned pipes used in oil well
construction.  The major contaminants at this site are trichloroethane (TCA), diesel fuel, and
lead. The proposed remedy in one portion of this site is injection of nZVI. The remediation
objectives and goals are two-fold; (1) reduce the mobility of lead at the site and (2) reduce the
concentrations of TCA and diesel fuel contaminants.  A field test was conducted in August 2006,
and the first round of sampling was scheduled for September 2006.

Another field study site, NASA's Launch Complex 34 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, was used as a
launch site for Saturn rockets from 1960 to 1968.  Rocket engines were cleaned on the launch
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

pad using chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethene (TCE).
Dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), primarily TCE, is present in the subsurface.

An EZVI demonstration was conducted beneath the Engineering Support Building. EZVI
consists of a hydrophobic oil membrane that is miscible with DNAPL surrounding a mixture of
nZVI and water.  Research indicates that contaminant destruction is achieved via abiotic
degradation by the nZVI and through biodegradation enhanced by the vegetable oil and
surfactant components.  At NASA's Launch Complex 34, EZVI was injected into six injection
wells located along the edge of the plot and directed inwards, as well as into two injection wells
located in the center, which were fully screened. Injection occurred at two discrete depth
intervals in each well. Results from the field study showed a significant reduction (57 to 100
percent) of TCE in target depths within five months, significant additional reduction of TCE in
groundwater samples collected 18 months after injection, and suggested longer-term TCE
reduction due to biodegradation. Subsequent fieldwork indicates that better distribution of EZVI
may be achieved using pneumatic fracturing or direct push rather than a pressure pulse injection

A third field study site, the Naval Air Station (NAS) in Jacksonville, Florida, was contaminated
by former underground  storage tanks (USTs).  Source area contaminants include TCE,
perchloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-TCA, and 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2,-DCE). Cleanup was conducted
under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)
and groundwater monitoring under RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). At this
site,  300 pounds of bimetallic nanoscale particles (BNP) (99.9 percent iron, 0.1 percent
palladium and polymer  support) were injected at ten injection points through gravity feed.
Results from this study showed that nZVI significantly reduced dissolved TCE levels in several
source zone wells. There were some increases in cis-l,2-dicholoroethene (1,2-DCE) and 1,1-
dichloroethane (1,1-DCA).  Strong reducing conditions were not achieved so substantial abiotic
degradation of TCE was not accomplished - presumably, nZVI was deactivated due to mixing
with oxygenated water or an insufficient amount of iron was injected.

A fourth field study site is located at the Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) in Lakehurst,
New Jersey.  A pilot-scale study was conducted in 2003 and full-scale work was conducted in
2005 and 2006.  PCE, TCE, TCA, cis-DCE, and vinyl chloride (VC) were the most prevalent
contaminants, of which the largest amounts were found 45-60 feet below the groundwater table.
Phase I of the full-scale project began in November 2005 with the application of 2,300  pounds of
NBP. Subsequently, Phase II started in January 2006 and involved 500 pounds of NBP. The
injection method used was direct push wells and the remedial objective was attainment of New
Jersey groundwater quality standards using a combination of nZVI and monitored natural
attenuation.  Both groundwater and soil were treated. Initial concentrations of chlorinated VOCs
were as high as 360 parts per billion (ppb) and final concentrations are still to be determined.  As
monitoring continues, greatly reduced contaminant levels have been observed in some
groundwater monitoring wells, even to the point of groundwater quality standards attainment.

The Navy has concluded that nZVI is a promising technology for source zone treatment.
Success has been achieved when a sufficient amount of iron is injected into the contaminated site
to create a strongly reducing environment.  It is important that care be taken so that nZVT is not
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop

deactivated during storage or mixing.  The Navy also concluded that short-term performance
monitoring can be misleading and that long-term treatment zone monitoring, lasting until
oxygen-reduction potential levels have returned to pre-treatment levels, is essential.

The Technology Innovation and Field Services Division (TIFSD) within the EPA Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) is collecting information on sites
where nZVI has been tested.  Cost and performance, media and contaminants treated, technology
and corresponding vendors, and points of contact are all being included among the information
being collected. TIFSD is also  preparing a fact sheet on the use of nanotechnology for site
Nease Chemical Superfund Site Nanotechnology Update
Mary Logan, Superfund Project Manager, EPA R5-SFD

The Nease Chemical Superfund Site (Nease) in Ohio encompasses approximately 44 acres. The
Nease facility was a chemical manufacturing plant from 1961 to 1973. Some interim cleanup
has been conducted since facility activities ceased. The primary contaminants selected for
remediation at this site are mirex (in the soil) and VOCs (in the groundwater). A future remedy
will address sediment and floodplain contamination.

There are five former wastewater ponds (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) that are generally filled and
vegetated. Ponds 1 and 2 cover approximately 1.5 acres and are the most contaminated, with
about 50,000 cubic yards of waste/fill and underlying soil. Maximum reported contaminant
concentrations in Ponds 1 and 2 are: greater than 50,000 parts per million (ppm) VOCs,
approximately 11,000 ppm semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), approximately 1,000
ppm pesticides.  NAPL is also present in waste and till. Impacts in Ponds  3 and 4 are less
significant. Mirex is the primary contaminant of concern (maximum of 2,080 ppm) in the soil.

The groundwater is in several hydrogeologic units (i.e., overburden, transition bedrock,  and
Middle Kittanning Sandstone bedrock), all of which are hydraulically connected. Ponds 1 and 2
are the primary source of contamination to the groundwater, where waste/fill in the ponds is
generally below the water table.  The primary contaminants in groundwater are chlorinated
ethanes and ethenes, benzene, and chlorobenzene.

The overburden groundwater consists of glacial till - silty clay with discontinuous sand  at an
average thickness of 20 feet. Depth to the groundwater ranges from a few feet to approximately
nine feet. Velocity ranges from one to 30 feet per year.  There are both eastern and southern
plume components.

The bedrock groundwater consists of Middle Kittanning Sandstone ranging in thickness from 21
to 53 feet with a velocity of 65 to 160 feet per year. The bedrock is fractured, so flow primarily
occurs through bedding plane partings.  The plume length is approximately 1,650 feet. DNAPL
is present in the bedrock groundwater near the source area and maximum total dissolved VOC
concentrations are greater than 100 ppm. Natural attenuation seems to be occurring, especially
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

EPA selected a remedy for soil, source areas, and groundwater in 2005. Ponds 1 and 2 will be
treated in situ by soil mixing/air stripping, stabilization, and solidification.  The other ponds and
soil will be covered/capped using either an impermeable geosynthetic membrane plus soil, or
only clean soil (this method will also be used on Ponds 1 and 2 after treatment).  The shallow,
eastern groundwater will be captured in a new collection trench, pumped above ground, and
treated on site. Deep groundwater and the shallow southern area will be treated by injection of
nZVI.  Long-term operation, monitoring, and maintenance are needed, as well as institutional

Site goals include:  control of releases to groundwater via leaching from Ponds 1 and 2; runoff
control; control of direct contact exposure from soil and pond waste; and reduction of
groundwater contaminant concentrations to the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).

What nZVI is and How it Works - nZVI preparations are 1 to 100 nanometer sized iron
particles with a large surface area compared to their volume. nZVI is very reactive;
contaminants are destroyed by a reaction similar to rusting and have non-toxic by-products.  An
iron-water slurry is injected through wells into the contaminated aquifer designed to diffuse/flow
with the groundwater. Use of pressure injection and/or down gradient extraction may increase
dispersion.  The goal is in situ treatment of the contaminants.

Contaminants are rapidly destroyed by oxidation-reduction reactions. With time, iron particles
partially  dissolve or settle out and reactivity declines. Many changes will occur in the
groundwater chemistry with nZVI treatment: oxidation-reduction potential is greatly lowered;
dissolved oxygen will be eliminated; and dissolved iron will increase.

Some things to keep in mind when considering nZVI are the types of contaminants at the site and
the ability of nZVI to treat the contaminants of concern, existing conditions (i.e., site
hydrogeology and groundwater chemistry), source control, underground injection requirements
(likely to be Applicable or Relevant  and Appropriate Requirements [ARARs]), and  cost. It is
also necessary to estimate: (1) the number of injection wells, as the radius of influence of the
treatment zone will determine spacing of the injection wells, and (2) the frequency of injections,
calculated by the nZVT mass requirements.

There are several reasons nZVI was  selected for the Nease facility. First, there was good
baseline information regarding site hydrogeology and chemistry/geochemistry. Second,
conditions were unfavorable for other remediation options due to the presence of DNAPL and
fractured bedrock.  Third, there were favorable geochemical conditions  such as low dissolved
oxygen concentrations and relatively low nitrate/nitrite and sulfate. Fourth, there is a desire to
maintain/enhance site conditions that support natural attenuation; the strongly reducing
conditions created by nZVT are favorable for anaerobic bacteria which will help degrade
chemicals that are not treated directly.  Fifth, nZVI treatment can be administered at a relatively
low cost. Finally, there was agreement on pre-design needs and a cooperative technical team.

At the Nease facility, a nZVT treatability study is being conducted as part of the pre-design
investigation.  The nZVT study has two phases - a bench scale study and a field pilot test - the
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                   7

results from which the final remedial design will be based.  Site-specific objectives for the bench
study (initiated in July 2006) include: assessing the effectiveness of nZVT for treatment of
chlorinated VOCs; determination of the potential of nZVT to treat non-chlorinated VOCs;
evaluation of by-product generation; determination of optimal formulation and dosage;
evaluation of site-specific geochemical influences on treatment effectiveness; and determination
of the longevity of nZVI. The bench study approach included: groundwater collection from a
highly contaminated well for a baseline analysis; jar tests for rate  and effectiveness of a range of
nZVI concentrations/formulations (0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, and 10 g/L); jar tests to assess the
influence of site geology on treatment; and capacity tests to determine the effectiveness of iron to
treat re-contaminated  samples.

Preliminary results from the bench study show that treatment is effective for chlorinated VOCs
with some formulations (e.g., iron with 1 percent palladium worked better and faster in the first
two weeks and 2-5 grams per liter of iron was an effective treatment concentration). Also, no
toxic chlorinated by-products were observed.  Additional studies are ongoing to determine site-
specific geochemical influences and longevity of nZVI.

The field pilot test was scheduled to begin in October 2006 with the objectives to verify
laboratory results; evaluate treatment under field conditions (i.e., confirm in-situ treatment
effectiveness, evaluate geochemical changes in the aquifer, evaluate rate of transport/dispersion
of nZVI, assess size of effective treatment zone, and assess in situ longevity); and support the
remedial design. The approach for the field pilot test includes bringing nZVT to the facility as a
parent slurry, mixing the parent slurry with potable water to provide the injected slurry, and
injecting the nZVI slurry into a groundwater well. Injection will occur at low pressure
(approximately 30 pounds per square inch (psi)) over several days and the well will be flushed
with clean water after injection.  Three types of monitoring will be used for the field pilot test:
installation and monitoring of three new wells, down-hole electronic  data loggers, and pre- and
post-injection chemical monitoring.

Health and Safety - Iron is abundant in nature, i.e., it makes up five  percent of the Earth's crust;
it is found in groundwater, soil, and surface water; and it is found with structure and size ranges
similar to  nZVI. The  fate and transport of nZVI at the Nease facility will be limited to the plume
core, as it will settle into the aquifer by sorption or agglomeration and there will be no release to
surface water or surface soil.  Heath and safety provisions for nZVT have been included in a work
plan at the site since the dust is flammable/explosive and inhalation, eye, or dermal exposures
could cause adverse health effects.

Cost - The bench and field pilot studies are estimated to cost $30,000 and $100,000,
respectively. Over the course of two years, the cost for the nZVI groundwater treatment
component of the selected remedy is estimated to be between $1.7 and $2 million.

A technical memorandum for the Nease facility is to be released in 2007 and will include results
of all tests, recommendations for full scale use, and lessons learned. Nanotechnology updates
will be given periodically. Other information can be obtained at
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                     Panel Session 1: Zerovalent Iron Nanoparticles

Nanoscale Iron Particles: Materials and Environmental Chemistry
Wei-Xian Zhang, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Lehigh Univ.

The concept of nZVI includes synthesis/production, characterization, geochemistry, reactivity,
mobility, long-term performance, and environmental impact. nZVI is an effective reductant,
widely used in permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) and is considered to be nontoxic and cheap.
Synthesis is affected by stirring speed, titration rate, concentrations, and reaction times.
Characterization has to do with particle size, zeta potential, and oxidation reduction potential (pH
and Eh).

The use of nZVI has major implications for solution pH and Eh. Preparations of nZVI also react
with organic contaminants by hydrodechlorination.  Lindane, a chlorinated pesticide, can also be
degraded. Advanced nanomaterials, such as porous ZVI, have large surface areas, better
hydraulics, high reactivity, and high mobility.
Nano-ZVI versus Conventional ZVI: What Difference Does Size Make, Really?
Paul Tratnyek, Dept. of Environmental and Biomolecular Systems, OGI School of Science
& Engineering, Oregon Health & Science Univ.

Most current environmental remediation applications of nanotechnology involve particulate
zerovalent metals, especially zerovalent iron (ZVI).  Therefore, these applications have much in
common with more-established applications of ZVT in remediation, such as "conventional" PRBs
(Tratnyek et al. 2003).  Since conventional PRBs are typically constructed with granular iron that
is hundreds of micrometers to a few millimeters in size, it is widely assumed that the essential
differences between conventional PRBs and remediation applications of nZVI stem from the
high reactivity and mobility of nanosized particles.

With respect to mobility, it is now clear that movement of nZVI in environmental porous media
will be very  limited. Therefore, only two engineering scenarios seem realistic: (1) creation of
"reactive treatment zones" by injection of nZVI in closely spaced wells such that the zones of
injected material overlap and (2) source zone treatment by injection of nZVI in the immediate
vicinity of NAPLs (Tratnyek and Johnson 2006). Engineering concepts that invoke movement of
nZVI through porous media (groundwater or sediments) for more than a few tens of meters
probably are misleading.

With respect to the reactivity of nZ VI, there are several aspects. Due to a variety of "aging"
processes, particle transformations are of practical as well as fundamental concern (Baer et al.
2007), but reactivity of the particles with contaminants has received the greatest attention. While
many of the  purported advantages of nZVI are predicated on it being more reactive than
conventional, micro- to milli-meter sized ZVI, most studies on which this claim is based leave a
host of potentially significant process variables uncontrolled or unresolved.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

To obtain a more precise understanding of how the reactivity of nZVI differs from conventional
ZVI, we performed a comparison of the properties of several nZVI preparations (Nurmi et al.
2005). The two types of nZVT studied most intensively included the original formulation of
reactive nanoscale iron particles (RNIP-10DS) marketed by the Toda Americas Company
(synthesized by high temperature reduction of goethite with H2 and formulated and shipped as an
aqueous slurry) and a sample provided by Dr. Wei-Xian Zhang prepared by the method used in
early work at Lehigh University (reductive precipitation from a ferric chloride solution with
borohydride). We designate these materials FeH2 and FeBH, respectively.

Using carbon tetrachloride (CCU) as a model  contaminant, we found that while nZVI gives faster
degradation rates on a mass-normalized basis, the surface-area-normalized rate constants for
nZVI are about the same as conventional ZVI. Thus, we saw no evidence for a nanoscale effect
on the "intrinsic" reactivity of ZVI over the range of conditions studied (Nurmi et al. 2005).  We
have confirmed that this conclusion applies quite broadly by extending the comparison of
reaction rates with additional data from our laboratory and others (Tratnyek and Johnson 2006).

While the above concerns the effect of nZVI on rates of CCU degradation, we are also interested
in if there is an effect of nanoparticle size on the pathway or products of contaminant
degradation. Our experiments show that FeH2  produces more favorable products (less
chloroform, CHC13) than FeBH or conventional ZVI (Nurmi et al. 2005; Baer et al. 2007). Since
the high yield of CHCb obtained with conventional ZVI has been the main reason that ZVI is not
widely used to remediate CCU, the unusually  low yield  of CHCb that we obtained with FeH2
may open up  a new range of remedial options for CCU contaminated sites.

Mining the literature for comparable data on CCU reduction for other types of particles (FesO/t,
FeS, etc.) suggests that nanoparticles with a ZVT core do have higher reactivity than particles that
do not contain ZVI. With other contaminants, nanoscale effects on kinetics and product
distributions are quite different.  For example, the explosives TNT and RDX apparently do
exhibit a nanoscale effect on surface-area normalized rate constants, but no particle size effect on
product distributions has been detected yet.
Baer, D. R., P. G. Tratnyek, et al. (2007). "Synthesis, characterization, and properties of zero-
       valent iron nanoparticles". In: Environmental Applications of Nanomaterials: Synthesis,
       Sorbents, and Sensors. G. E. Fryxell. London, Imperial College Press: 49-86.
Nurmi, J. T., P. G. Tratnyek, et al.  (2005). "Characterization and properties of metallic iron
       nanoparticles: spectroscopy, electrochemistry, and kinetics." Environmental Science and
       Technology 39(5):  1221-1230.
Tratnyek, P. G. and R. L. Johnson  (2006). "Nanotechnologies for environmental cleanup."
       NanoToday 1(2): 44-48.
Tratnyek, P. G., M. M.  Scherer, et al. (2003). "Permeable reactive barriers of iron and other zero-
       valent metals". In: Chemical Degradation Methods for Wastes and Pollutants:
       Environmental and Industrial Applications. M. A. Tarr. New York, Marcel Dekker: 371-
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  10

Transport of Modified Reactive Nanoscale Iron Particles in Subsurface Soils
Krishna Reddy, Dept. of Civil & Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

There are several types of environmental remediation research being conducted at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, one of which is the use of nanotechnology for the characterization and
remediation of contaminated soils, sediments, and groundwater. The focus of this particular
research is based on the hypothesis that transport (delivery) of reactive nanoscale iron particles
(RNIP) into a contaminated subsurface is essential for the success of this remediation
technology.  Some challenges associated with the research include: (1) RNIP cannot be
transported through porous media without modifying their surface; (2) the subsurface
environment is mostly heterogeneous and can be unsaturated and/or saturated, making the
delivery of RNIP under such complex conditions challenging; and (3) there is no general
reliable predictive model  for assessing the transport of RNIP into the subsurface.

The five objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) transport of various surface-modified
RNIP (MRNIP) in different saturated homogeneous porous media; (2) transport of MRNIP in
different unsaturated and  saturated heterogeneous subsurface environments;  (3) enhanced
transport strategies; (4) reactivity of nanoscale iron particles during their transport in different
subsurface environments; and (5) transport and fate modeling of nanoscale iron particles.

The scope of the preliminary research includes a series of column experiments using four types
of RNIP and natural silty  sand. The four types of RNIP, provided by TOD A America, Inc., are
their original RNIP (10 DS) and three polymer coated  MRNIP.  Properties of the RNIP
suspension are: a-iron core and magnetite (iron oxide) shell composition; average particle size:
70 nanometers; 30 meters squared per gram of surface area; and 5,000 milligrams per kilogram
sulfur content. The aqueous MRNIP slurry has a density of 1.20 grams per milliliter and is 17
percent solids.

The first step in the synthesis of RNIP (supplied by TODA America, Inc.) is acicular goethite
(FeO(OH)),  precipitated from oxygenated ferrous sulfate (FeSO/t) solution.  Next, the acicular
goethite is reduced to a-iron grains in a heated hydrogen gas atmosphere. The a-iron grains are
wet-milled, a process during which the surface converts to magnetite.

The procedure for this research involved loading the columns with soil to a height of 20 cm,
injecting a slug of selected RNIP suspension at 2.0 grams per liter (g/L),  flushing with deionized
water or simulated groundwater, and analyzing effluent for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total
dissolved solids, and iron. Among the different polymer MRNIP, MRNIP-2 was found to
transport relatively better under both deionized water (DI) and simulated groundwater
(electrolyte) flushing. Using MRNIP-2, a series of enhanced transport strategies were then
tested, including various polymer to RNIP ratios, different levels of pressure and conditions
(pulsed and constant), and oxygen-free conditions (oxygen was replaced with nitrogen).

Preliminary  results show that polymer MRNIP, specifically MRNIP-2, can be effectively
transported through subsurface soils under pressurized conditions.  Results also show that
enhanced transport strategies must be investigated depending on the specific soil type and the
surface modification of RNIP.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                         Panel Session 2: Various Nanoparticles

Chemical and Biochemical Nanosensors Based on Single WallNanotube - Field Effect
Transistor Devices
Erica Forzani, Dept. of Electrical Engineering & Center for Solid State Electronics
Research, Arizona State Univ.

The need for improved sensors is widespread, including the environment, security, health,
industry, food quality, and more. The human body is the perfect sensor to emulate, in particular,
neuronal synapses. Neuronal synapses are the perfect feed-back system to imitate because of
their capability for recognition of elements, signal transduction, signal processing, and data
communication.  There is a need to miniaturize and integrate such an imitation and electrical
detection is the method closest to the way neuronal synapses function.

Electrical  detection allows for a high degree of integration for a miniaturized device to
simultaneously detect different species.  It also allows for simple processing, display, and
transmittal of data and is compatible with microelectronics, enabling scientists to take advantage
of existing microtechnology.

Field Effect Transistor (FET) nanosensors have many  positive aspects. In a glucose sensor, there
are no toxic mediators for transduction; they are 300 times faster and 100 times more sensitive
than similar sensors on 20 micrometer (^m) gap. Metal iron sensors are 500 times faster and 4 x
104 times more sensitive.  Nanoscale FET sensors are  superior to microsensors because they can
cross a gap smaller than 60 nm. In  conventional  sensors, such as FET, conduction through the
channel region is two dimensional.  In a one dimensional FET nanosensor however, sensitivity is
enhanced because there are fewer pathways for charge carriers, less scattering, higher area to
volume ratios, and a faster time response.

Single wall nanotubes (SWNTs) have unique structural and electrical properties. They  are
metallic and semiconducting. For a p-type  semiconducting SWNT - FET, the "gate" and
nanotube are like two plates in a capacitor.  Carrier density can be changed by changing the gate
potential (electrostatic induction) and negative backgate potentials can induce an increase of
charge carriers (holes) in nanotubes (p-type semiconductor).  P-type behavior is due to gold
contact  and adsorbed oxygen that acts as p-type dopant. Also, changing the chemical
environment of a tube can change the doping level and lead to different sensor applications.

In order to convert a SWNT into a sensing element a method involving electropolymerization of
peptide-functionalized monomers is used. This allows the peptides, composed of amino acids, to
be used as molecular probes. Such  probes can be used to detect such elements as copper in water
or Hepatitis C by identifying a characteristic ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequence. Functionalizing
SWNTs with peptide-polymers involves  selectivity, sensitivity, conductance features, and
versatility (the number of different peptide  sequences is virtually unlimited). Real time detection
of heavy metal ions and RNA sequences with extremely low detection limits has been
demonstrated. Remaining issues of SWNT-FET sensors include:  sample delivery (need for
microfluidics), interconnection issues (going from nanoscale to macroscale world), avoiding the
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  12

effect of interference in complex matrix samples (non-specific binding), and detection restricted
to electrical double layer length and contact versus wall side effects.
"Functionalized Nanoporous Ceramic Sorbents for Removal of Mercury & Other
Shas Mattigod, Applied Geology & Geochemistry, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Nanoporous ceramic substrate has controlled pore channels 1.5-40 nm in diameter and a large
surface area, -600-1000 square meters per gram (m2/g). Self-assembled monolayers on
mesoporous silica (SAMMS) have customized surface chemistry that can be designed to be
extremely specific for adsorption of the target constituents. In addition to being very specific,
the binding capacity and strength are very high. Thiol-activated SAMMS have been shown to be
extremely effective at binding mercury, lead, and arsenic among other constituents.

Preliminary cost comparison shows SAMMS to be much more cost effective for mercury
removal than resin or granular activated carbon (GAC). Additionally, in a performance analysis
SAMMS adsorption was shown to not be affected by macro or trace cations, anions, or organics.
The pH range was approximately 3-13. Loading was approximately 40 - 600 milligrams per
gram (mg/g) with fast kinetics of around 99.9 percent  at 5 minutes.  A very high specificity was
recorded at Kd of approximately 103-108 milliliter per gram (ml/g). Finally,  SAMMS
generates highly stable waste resulting in a low disposal cost.

Some applications for SAMMS include the purification of produced water, crude oil, smelter
condensate, gas condensates, natural gas, and mustard  gas.  SAMMS are the next generation
materials for hierarchical pore structured materials. Targeted applications include flue gas
mercury removal, precious metal recovery, and sensors.
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                 13

                          Nanotechnology Life-Cycle Analysis

Industrial Ecology, Sustainability and Nanotechnology
Barbara Karn, EPA OKD-NCER and Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
Emerging Nanotechnologies Project

There is a research framework for nanotechnology and the environment that can be categorized
by applications and implications.  Applications address existing environmental problems or the
prevention of future problems.  Some applications are in the areas of green energy; treatment;
remediation;  sensors;  and green nanotechnology. Implications, however, address the
interactions of nanomaterials with the environment and any potential risks that may be posed by
nanotechnology. Some areas of investigation under implications are toxicology; fate &
transport and transformation; natural nanoparticle processes;  exposure, bioavailability, and
bioaccumulation;  and life cycle aspects.  Other areas of activity involving nanotechnology and
the environment are standards development, international activities, regulatory and voluntary
policies, state and local policies, public perception, risk-benefit analysis, and how the EPA might
approach the nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science
(NBIC) convergence.

The history of nanotechnology may be followed by reference to the following publications and
conference proceedings:
    7970 Industrial Ecology (magazine) published
    1972 Industrial Ecology in Japan
    1989 Frosch article in Scientific American
    1991 National Academy of Science colloquium
    1992 ATT Industrial Ecology Fellowships
    1992 National Academy of Engineering workshops
    1995 Graedel and Allenby textbook
    1997 Journal of Industrial Ecology
    1998 Gordon Research Conference
    2001 International Society for Industrial Ecology

Industrial ecology is a rapidly growing field that systematically examines local, regional, and
global materials and energy flows in products, processes, industrial sectors, and economies. It
focuses on the potential role of industry in reducing environmental burdens throughout the
product life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to the production of goods, the use of
those goods, and the management of the resulting wastes.

A system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex
whole. Industrial  ecology takes a systems perspective by making a self-conscious attempt to
avoid partial analyses (emphasis on a long-time horizon and global extent) and covering two
bases for execution of systems-orientation, i.e., a life cycle view and materials balances. The
scale of industrial ecology has three levels of operation: macro - understanding global and
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                 14

national materials and energy flows; meso - industry studies and studies evaluating industrial
symbiosis to understand regional and sector linkages; and micro - more local and specific studies
such as design for environment (DfE), life cycle assessment (LCA), and pollution prevention

As reflected in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, industrial ecology topic areas include, but are
not limited to, material and energy flows studies, dematerialization and decarbonization,
technological change and the environment, and life cycle planning, design and assessment.
Additional topic areas can also be found in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

In most cases, there is no industrial materials cycle.  If nanomaterials replace other materials,
those other materials become the waste. Quantifying the metabolism of physical economies
requires:  total material requirement and output; physical input-output tables (PIOT); company-
level materials/substance flow analysis (MFA): eco-balance, company materials accounting, and
eco-audits; ecological  footprint analysis; sustainable process index; life cycle assessment;
material intensity per unit service; environmental space; substance flow analysis; and bulk
internal flow MFA.  Regarding industrial ecology tools and nanotechnology, beginning to look at
processes and their impacts throughout the whole system is necessary.  For example, there is
growing use of over 60 new elements in the semiconductor industry such as the lanthanides and
transition metals, each with currently unknown environmental impacts.

The circular economy involves closing loops in industrial systems.  The Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) definition for LCA states, "Life Cycle
Assessment is a process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product,
process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released
to the environment; to assess the impact of those energy and materials used and releases to the
environment; and to identify and evaluate opportunities to  affect environmental improvements.
The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the product, process or activity, encompassing,
extracting and processing raw materials; manufacturing, transportation and distribution; use, re-
use, maintenance; recycling, and final disposal" (SETAC,  1991). SETAC's LCA steps include a
flowchart, inventory emissions at each step, environmental effects, and a comparison of impacts.

LCA can evaluate overall material and energy efficiency of a system; identify pollution shifts
between operations or media as well as other tradeoffs in materials, energy, and releases; and
benchmark system efficiency improvements as well as reductions in releases. By itself, LCA
cannot generate a comprehensive assessment of any system.

Eco-industrial parks ("industrial symbiosis") can be depicted by the Kalundborg Model. Eco-
efficiency revolves around activities that "Reduce, Reuse,  and Recycle," which leads to a
reduction in resource depletion and destruction. It does not halt the process. Destruction takes
place in smaller increments over a longer period of time. Product stewardship is a product-
centered approach to environmental protection, also known as extended product responsibility
(EPR), that calls on those involved in the product life cycle (i.e., manufacturers, retailers, users,
and disposers) to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products. DfE is
a systematic integration of environmental considerations into product and process design.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  15

Green nanotechnology has two goals: producing nanomaterials and products without harming the
environment or human health, and producing nanoproducts that provide solutions to our
environmental changes.  The Green Nanotechnology Framework involves production and
products.  Production of nanomaterials and products can be performed in a way that will not
harm the environment. It is possible to make nanotechnology "greenly" (e.g.: green chemistry,
green engineering, DfE, smart business practices) or use nanotechnology to "green" production
(e.g., nanomembranes, nanoscaled catalysts, pollution prevention). Products of nanotechnology
can help the environment through direct environmental  applications (e.g., environmental
remediation, sensors) or indirect environmental applications (e.g., to save energy and reduce
waste).  It is important to anticipate the full life cycle of nanomaterials and nanoproducts.

Nanotechnology is a very powerful new approach that will change our industries and our lives.
We have a very small  window right now to develop this technology prudently - to learn from
past mistakes and concurrently look at the possibility of harmful implications as we increase the
                           Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology

A Proactive Approach to Nanotech EH&S
Aatish Salvi, Vice President, NanoBusiness Alliance

When it comes to nanotechnology, there are some key messages to keep in mind.  First,
nanomaterials occur naturally in the environment. The use of new engineered nanomaterials can
allow people the ability to better control the properties of these materials and has the potential to
improve their performance over existing materials. People can be proactive in nanoscience by
actively pursuing green nanotechnologies. Secondly, environmental health & safety (EH&S)
research on nanomaterials suggests that society should be cautious.  However, being alarmist
damages the industry and public confidence. It is important to be proactive in consumer
education by providing balanced perspectives for the media and  public.  Finally, the existing
regulatory infrastructure has the authority and flexibility to handle nanotechnology without the
need for new laws. It is possible to be proactive in policy by prioritizing the data gathering
required for these regulations to intelligently adapt to the advances in nanotechnology.

It is also important to understand that nanomaterials are not new, as people have been
unwittingly using nanomaterials for centuries to impart improved properties into materials.
Nature made use of nanomaterials long before  mankind learned how to leverage them. People
have also been producing and dispersing "incidental" nanoparticles in tremendous volumes from
hydrocarbon combustion for decades, possibly even centuries. However, the ability to control
the properties that emerge from the deliberate synthesis of nanomaterials is largely new; rather
than a serendipitous process of discovery, people are moving toward the rational design of

As things approach the nanoscale, new properties emerge.  These new properties can be "tuned"
by control of the constituent composition, size, and spacing of materials.  Specifically,
nanotechnology will permit control of structural properties (e.g., strength and ductility), thermal
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

properties, catalytic properties, electrical properties, magnetic properties, and optical properties.
This new degree of freedom changes and reduces the materials-related constraints engineers
confront when designing products and allows new creativity in product design.  It also allows
companies to enhance commercially relevant properties while blunting biologically harmful

There are many ways nanotechnology can lead to a greener tomorrow. Nanotechnology is on the
forefront of air, water, and soil remediation; nanomaterials can replace known toxic materials in
several applications; and nanomaterials can reduce pollution at its source by reducing
consumption and enabling cleaner production.

It is important to look at both sides of the risk equation. While proceeding with caution is good,
it is unnecessary to be alarmist. Some reasons for caution include: (1) the size of nanoparticles
in some cases allows them greater mobility in organisms, soil, and water; (2) there is some
evidence that indicates that inhalation of carbon nanotubes can cause lung inflammation; (3)
intradermally injected nanoscale quantum dots were found to disperse into the skin and reach the
lymph nodes; and (4) metrology and modeling for nanomaterials are still in their early stages and
require improvements.

As previously stated, there is no need to be alarmist.  The Center for Biological and
Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) has found that water soluble carbon nanotubes are less
toxic than their insoluble counterparts and that simple surface chemistry changes dramatically
reduce the toxicity of carbon 60 (C60) and carbon nanotubes.  Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
found that polyethylene glycol coated quantum dots can be absorbed into cells with minimal
impact to cellular function at 1,000 times the dosage of typical use. Karlsruhe Research Center
found that the type of salt used in toxicity tests can have major impacts on the toxicity of
nanotubes due to the formation of crystals on the nanotube surfaces.  Additionally, the workplace
safety findings of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicated
that a "well designed exhaust ventilation system with high efficiency paniculate air (HEPA)
filters should effectively remove nanoparticles."

A false, yet very public alarm can have detrimental effects on nanotechnology.  Keeping a
balance perspective is necessary. "Nanotechnology" is a brand with significant potential value,
but it can be badly damaged and cause consumer confusion unless action is taken.  The media
plays a critical role in influencing consumer confidence and negative headlines are common.
Even though most articles are balanced, 48 percent of the headlines about nanotechnology in the
United States' papers are negative. It is imperative to be proactive in  providing a balanced
perspective for the media and the public, and in protecting  the use of the nanotechnology brand.

One  major question of debate includes, "should new legislation be written specifically for
nanotechnology?"  The answer is, not until more research has been completed.  There is already
a regulatory framework in place. There are acts that regulate and manage materials and are thus
regulating and managing nanomaterials under the auspice of materials. More research and
understanding are needed before literature is created to manage and regulate nanotechnology
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  17

                          Panel Session 3: Nanotechnology Risks

Environmental Transport, Fate, and Potential Risks of Nanomaterials
Greg Lowry, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon Univ.

The desired properties for functionalized nanoparticles for in situ remediation include stable
dispersions, minimized filtration mechanisms, and nanoparticle-contaminant interaction. The
risks associated with nanotechnology are largely unknown and are a function of both exposure
and toxicity.  It is thus necessary to monitor exposure pathways,  fate and transport in the
environment, and toxicity to determine actual risk.

Nanomaterial mobility in a porous material can be limited by aggregation, straining, attachment,
and NAPL targeting. Factors affecting this mobility include chemical factors (pH, ionic strength,
and surface chemistry) and physical factors (flow velocity, particle/aggregate size,
heterogeneity). Nanoparticle aggregation in water can be attributed to high Hamaker constant,
chemical bonding, hydrophobicity, and magnetic attraction.  Small particles have high diffusion
coefficients and thus experience many collisions between particles, leading to high aggregation
rates. Nanoparticle aggregation can limit mobility. Attachment  is also an important fate process
as it limits mobility in porous material and may affect bioavailability/transformation/degradation.
Attachment is a function of the particle type and coatings used.  Surface modifiers can increase
mobility by inhibiting aggregation and particle-media interactions. Mobility also depends highly
on ionic strength and composition (divalent cations).

Are nanomaterials toxic?  Many nanoparticles (e.g., fullerenes) are cytotoxic to diverse cell types
and/or cause  oxidative  stress (OS).  Toxicity  is thought to be a function of size, surface area,
surface charge, and functional groups. If inhaled or injected, particles can enter systemic
circulation and enter various organs and tissues such as the liver, kidney, or brain. Additionally,
nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the central nervous system.

Research has shown that nanomaterials are predominantly present as aggregates, but
(statistically) some single particles are also present. Nanoparticle mobility in porous media is
low under typical groundwater conditions but surface modification can enhance mobility, even at
high ionic strength and in the presence of divalent cations. Amphiphilic coatings offer the
potential for targeting DNAPL and other types of modifiers offer potential for "targeted"
delivery. Particles change with time through processes such as oxidation, hydroxylation,
sorption to organic matter, and biotransformations.  The type and fate of surface coatings used
can greatly affect the potential for risk by modifying nanoparticle surface properties which can
determine both their mobility (affecting exposure concentrations) and their toxicity.
Nanotoxicology and Industry
Shane Journeay, Toxicology and Nanotechnology, Univ. of Saskatchewan

'Nano' is now! Nanotechnology and nanoscale materials are already being used.  Sunscreens
use titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide (TiC>2 and/or ZnO) nanoparticles, tennis balls are lined
with ceramic nanoparticles, and pants are being embedded with nanowhiskers for stain and
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  18

wrinkle resistance. Current nanomaterials include quantum dots (in medical electronics and
diagnostic markers), nanotubes (being developed for a wide variety of applications ranging from
composites to electronics and biomedical applications), nanosilicates (in paint pigments, tennis
balls, and food packaging), and metal nanosilicates (in cosmetics and sunscreens). There are
roughly 300 products on the market that claim to be improved via nanotechnology.  With the
growing application of nanotechnology to manufacturing processes and products, the human and
environmental health aspects of this "disruptive" industrial technology will need to be addressed.

Examples of Current Nanomaterials - Carbon nanotubes are an example of high aspect ratio
nanoparticles with two common examples being the single wall and multi-wall carbon nanotubes
(SWNT and MWNT). SWNT are 1-2 nm in diameter and can be grown to more than one
millimeter (mm) in length. MWNT have layered concentric walls and have diameters up to 20
nm, and can also be grown to be 1 mm in length. Nanotubes have a tensile strength
approximately 100 times  stronger than steel, yet they are a sixth the weight. They also have
unique conductivity and molecular adsorption capacity.  Buckeyballs or Ceo are being studied
intensively for a variety of applications including drug delivery. Rosette nanotubes are another
class of nanotubes (described below) which are free of metals and naturally water-soluble, which
is in contrast to the SWNT and MWNT forms. At present SWNT, MWNT, and C60 are the most
studied engineered nanomaterials and are the most likely to be produced in commercial
quantities in the future. Other current industrial or occupational health relevant nanoparticles
include titanium dioxide,  carbon black,  and diesel exhaust particles.

Why are Nanoparticles Different? — Nanoparticles (<100nm) have several characteristics that
make them different from conventional materials. Examples of nanomaterial characteristics that
are different because of their extremely small particle size (<100nm) include: much larger
number of particles for a given mass dose; much larger surface areas (quantum effect);  generally
more reactive with higher surface energies; altered physicochemical properties; and resistance to
dispersal.  If nanoparticles did not have unique and different properties, we would not be so
interested in applying them for new products and chemical processes.

These same properties which make nanoscale particles attractive also pose a challenge to the
evaluation of their toxicity. Indeed, which dose-metric to use in toxicity studies (particle
number, surface area, or mass) is still being debated and will likely be particle specific.
Nanoscale particles may have altered toxicity due to binding or adsorption to other contaminants
when exposed to different physiological environments in the body or when in contact with
environmental systems or receptors. Until better methods for monitoring these nanoparticle
properties in industrial environments is available, it is difficult to determine both the hazard and
exposure components of the risk equation.  Because the behavior of nanoscale particles in
biological media and their fate and transport in  organisms is just beginning to be understood,
studies on the entire life cycle of nanomaterials are difficult at present. This is, however, an
emerging key issue in industry. Future research efforts that will be a priority for industry will
include understanding the lifecycle of nanoscale materials from raw materials production,
handling, consumer use, disposal, and recycling phases of a product.

Understanding the properties of nanoscale materials which impart favorable or toxic responses is
crucial to determining risk and controlling exposures in the industrial environment.  Indeed, a
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  19

number of studies have examined the toxicity of SWNT from an occupational health standpoint.
In contrast to SWNT, an organic class of nanotubes known as rosette nanotubes has a number of
features which may impart biocompatibility.  Characteristics of the helical rosette nanotube
include: water solubility without modification; metal free synthesis (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen); polydisperse length (shorter tubes of approximately 50-200nm are formed when
synthesized at lower water temperatures while tubes can grow to a few microns at higher
temperatures); a pH dependent aggregation state; and easy surface modification. This example
highlights the possibility that, if some nanostructures have undesirable properties which may
confer toxicity, it may be possible to "engineer out" such properties or "engineer in" biologically
favorable characteristics.  This of course can only be accomplished if the intended industrial or
commercial property of the nanostructure is not compromised.

Exposure - Humans have been exposed to nanoparticles for hundreds of years ranging from sea
salt to volcanic particulate and forest  fire by-products.  In the last 15 years a great deal of
attention has been paid to the nanoscale or ultrafine (<100nm) component of parti culate matter.
Recently, the issue of possible exposures associated with scaled up production and handling of
novel engineered nanomaterials has been raised.

Exposure to nanoparticles can result from cigarette smoke, diesel soot, tires, rubber products;
welding smoke and exhaust, soldering, foundries, injection molding, grinding and polishing;
nanoparticle based ceramics, paints, and cosmetics; quantum dots; and nanoparticle based
medical products such as pharmaceuticals, drugs, and diagnostic agents. Unintentional
exposures are particularly being focused on in industrial production and handling environments
as related to occupational health. This is particularly important given that the traditional routes
of exposure for occupational toxicants (inhalation and dermal) have unique considerations when
studying the toxicological behavior and responses to nanoparticle exposure. Nanotoxicology
will be discussed in detail in the subsequent presentation and certainly presents some novel
issues for industry health and safety.  Intentional exposure may occur from consumer products or
medical applications. At present, adequate technology to precisely measure the lexicologically
relevant components of nanoparticulate (particle number versus surface area versus mass versus
volume) are in development and thus  robust data on exposures is difficult to ascertain at present.

Present day activity for manufacturing and use of nanomaterials is 49 percent in the United
States, 30 percent in the European Union, and 21 percent in other parts of the world. The
emphasis of the nanomaterial manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom has been bulk
markets in metals and metal oxides, as well as some niche markets  such as quantum dots, and
does not reflect the global emphasis on fullerenes, nanotubes, and nanofibers.  The
manufacturing of nanoscale metals, polymers, silica, clays, and ceramics represent mature
processes capable of generating large commercial quantities of materials (Aitken etal. Occup
Med 56:300-06; 2006).

Nanomaterial safety considerations in research and development environments are of great
interest to industry at present.  Through voluntary reporting schemes, submission of any
procedures or data regarding health and environmental effects from products using
nanotechnology are encouraged.  This is presently being attempted in the United Kingdom.
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                 20

Summary - Nanomaterials have novel properties that deserve consideration.  At present, there is
still need for data on both the toxicity of nanomaterials and techniques to adequately assess
exposures to nanomaterials. Life cycle analysis will be very important as the science continues
to develop.  Further understanding of nanoparticle interaction with other contaminants and
organisms in the environment is required and case studies of industrial operations are needed.
As the science of nanotechnology,  nanotoxicity testing, and nano-exposure assessment matures,
there will be a need for education and training of appropriate personnel to ensure the responsible
growth of the nanotechnology industry.
"Risk Assessment of Nanoscale Metal Particles"
Joyce Tsuji & Fionna Mowat, Exponent, Health Services Practice

The Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory lists 212 products from more than 15
countries (60 percent of which are manufactured by the United States). The largest categories
are health and fitness (i.e., sporting goods, cosmetics, sunscreens), electronics and computers,
and home and garden.

The Risk Assessment Framework begins with hazard identification (including chemical
composition, particle size, structure, properties, coatings); moves to exposure assessment
(dispersed or aggregate, coatings integrity, receptor, entry routes) and toxicity assessment
(uptake, distribution, metabolism, excretion, reactivity, dosimetry); and ends with risk
characterization (likelihood of effects, affected population, type of effects).

Nanoscale metal particles include pigments, zerovalent metals, and metals used in therapeutics,
electronics, and aerosols. Key exposure issues for human health and the environment are defined
by the degree of containment or encapsulation, environmental fate and transport, availability of
technology to conduct relevant exposure measures, and effectiveness of current approaches for
occupational and consumer protection. There are no agreed upon methods for measuring
airborne nanoscale exposures. Options include a mass-based approach, size distribution, number
concentration, and surface area. The best method may vary with the nanoparticle, for example,
the NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin on titanium dioxide (TiC^) suggests that particle surface
area is the better dose metric for TiCMhan mass or number.

Materials science analysis includes performance (i.e., durable, encapsulated, stable), properties
(i.e., toughness, adhesion, friability, environmental resistance, diffusion rates), structure (i.e.,
polarity, crystallinity, reactivity), and process (i.e., mixing, heating, application). Exposure
potential is influenced by coatings durability, product integrity, properties of the particles
themselves and that of the binders used. Encapsulation limits exposure when nano-iron is
incorporated in resin beads.  They have high effective capacity (rapid absorption, tight binding,
and high equilibrium capacity) and regeneration is possible so that they can be reused multiple
times and their use results in a relatively small  volume of solid waste.

The good news is there is substantial awareness of the issue; processes are "similar" to  other
chemical production processes; current personal protection measures are likely adequate;
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  21

airborne materials may quickly agglomerate while dispersing; filtration is probably effective for
airborne nanoparticles; and exposure might actually be quite low.

For people involved in manufacturing or synthesizing nanoparticles, it is recommended that the
work area be well ventilated and the product be mixed within enclosed vessels or in liquid slurry;
that nanoparticles be encapsulated to prevent release; and that "best practices" and standard
operating procedures be evaluated. Exposure of any new product, as well as older products,
should be  evaluated and "lessons learned" from other materials should be used when applicable,
as well as  performance of exposure potential analyses.  Toxicology issues for nanoparticles
include their ability to cross biological barriers, such as cell membranes, skin, and lungs and their
higher reactivity from their relatively large surface area.

Zerovalent iron nanoparticles are novel nanoproducts that can reach cells.  Their lack of charge
may allow more nZVI to enter cells more freely, but there has been little research on the effects.
Passage of nanoparticles through red blood cell membranes is size dependent, rather than surface
charge or particle type dependent. The effects of particle size on pulmonary inflammation  show
toxicity depends on surface area rather than mass.  Direct transport to the brain via sensory
neurons has been demonstrated via deposition and translocation of inhaled particles.

Dermal studies, mostly involving TiC>2  and zinc oxide used in sunscreens, show photoreactivity
can be mitigated by surface coatings. Also, there is little evidence of penetration to living layers
for unbroken skin; however, penetration via follicles or areas of flexion is possible. Research by
the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate
penetration using quantum dots is ongoing.

Ecological toxicology shows ecological risk is based on particle stability and short-term toxicity
of fullerenes to fish, daphnia, and bacteria. Nanometal oxides have anti-microbial effects and
nano-ferric oxide (Fe2C>3) is more cytotoxic in vitro than ferrous iron.

Standard screening tests of relative toxicity of engineered nanoparticles are being developed and
ecotoxicity testing should be considered in order to comply with existing performance-based
limits which regulate discharges. Both short-term and long-term tests should be conducted.
                         Panel Session 4: Human Health Impacts

Pharmacokinetics, Tissue Distribution, and Excretion of Polyacrylamide Nanoparticles
Yvan Wenger, School of Public Health, Univ. of Michigan

Polyacrylamide (PAA) nanoparticles are neutrals, polymeric, and approximately 60 nm in
diameter.  Their applications range from controlled drug delivery to molecular targeting to
photodynamic therapy to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agent. Certain
modifications lead to specific changes in PAA properties,  such as a polyethylene glycol (PEG)
coating leads to increased blood circulation time and a biodegradable cross-linker enhances
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  22

Health impacts of PAA nanoparticles were evaluated by investigating the pharmacokinetics. In
rats, after a single intravenous administration of up to 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), no
visible damage to the rat tissues was observed.  Excretion was found to be proportional to blood
concentration and blood concentration exhibited three distinct behaviors: Phase I consisted of
rapid distribution to organs; Phase II consisted of distribution throughout the body (0.5 - 27 hrs);
and Phase III during which excretion occurred (0.5 - 340 hrs).  The long half-life of PAA
suggests that accumulation in the body is possible with repeated dosing.
Life Cycle Assessment of Nanotechnology-based Remedial Technologies
Olivier Jolliet, Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences, Univ. of Michigan

The need to provide quantified analytical tools to evaluate different kinds of materials, in order
to go beyond "a priori", can be illustrated by the following example in which the environmental
impact of polystyrene packing filler is used versus popcorn.  Since polystyrene chips used for
packing filler are made with a non-renewable raw material (petroleum) and are not
biodegradable, popcorn has been proposed as a substitute material both because it is a renewable
resource and it is biodegradable.

Jolliet et al. (1994) showed that, for each unit of mass of material, popcorn is three to four times
more favorable than polystyrene. However, popcorn is 4.6 times denser than polystyrene chips.
Therefore, popcorn is equal or worse than polystyrene if impacts are calculated per functional
unit, i.e., per unit volume of packing filler. Consequently, the relative density of packing filler
material is the key parameter from the environmental point of view.  Thus, more environmental
gain could be achieved through decreasing the popcorn density by as much as 46% rather than
reducing the quantity of fertilizer used to grow the popcorn or of water used to wash the popcorn.

Counter to intuition, popcorn environmental friendliness was successfully enhanced beyond that
of polystyrene via increased industrial processing, i.e., by extracting the starch from the popcorn
and decreasing its density by about 460% via blowing it much like the polystyrene (Dinkel et al.,
1996).  Initially, the result is astonishing and paradoxical: a more industrially processed and
therefore less near to nature popcorn will be more favorable to the environment than unprocessed
popcorn.  This example illustrates that the intuitive concept of "natural" does not necessarily
correspond to the one of "environmentally friendly". Also, this example shows that the
environmental benefit from a biomaterial is directly linked to its functionality in the context of a
given application.  It is therefore not possible to discuss the benefits  of a material or of a
remediation technique only according to its intrinsic characteristics.  The popcorn case shows the
potential synergy between technological optimization (in this case, the reduction of weight and
quantity of material used) and energetic and environmental optimization.

Remediation of a contaminated site in Bioley-Orjulaz, Switzerland led to a comparison of risks
and impacts of six remediation scenarios.  The old municipal Swiss landfill was contaminated
with 5 m3 of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the form of 3,600 m3 of highly polluted
soil and 5,400 m3 of nominally polluted soil.  The involved parties wanted to discern the
environmentally friendliest technology to use for remediation.  The key parameters were
identified and trade-offs between the six alternatives were compared and assessed. Modeling of
None/technology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  23

contaminant fate and exposure pathways demonstrated that the key parameters depended on the
amount, fate, and effects of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Contaminant mass in the
environment was characterized by transfer fractions and contaminant residence times and human
intake was characterized by bioaccumulation factors and ingestion rates.  Contaminated soil
transportation and the capacity to generate electricity were key factors in the results. It was
concluded that incineration in a cement plant was the best alternative for the highly contaminated
soil whereas burial in a landfill was the best alternative  for the inert materials and the nominally
contaminated soils.  Soil washing and biological treatment were eliminated due to the abundance
of fine particles and degradation resistant contaminants.

Initially, the application of LCA to nano-based remedial technologies would perhaps need to
consider the same factors needed for conventional LCA as described in the Bioley-Orjulaz site
example.  It would require the consideration of the following key issues and  data calculated on a
function basis: transportation impacts; energy and material inputs for each treatment option;
detailed data on nanomaterial manufacturing and the quantity produced; direct emissions of toxic
substances released during treatment with nanoproducts; direct emissions of toxic  nanomaterials,
either the nanomaterials initially used or those produced by interaction with to the toxic materials
that are being treated; and data on  partitioning properties, intake fraction, and dose-response

In order to use known LCA methods certain unique nano-specific questions must be answered.
For instance:
    1.  How may one identify the life cycle risks of new nano-based products and  materials
       compared to conventional products?
   2.  What are the emissions associated with nanomaterial manufacture and processing
       compared to those of conventional products?
   3.  What are the mechanisms affecting fate and biological effects of nanoparticles?

We have developed an extended life cycle framework to analyze the trade-offs between risks to
human health and benefits of nanotechnologies as a replacement for conventional technologies.
First, a matrix approach has been developed to identify  the main risks associated with
nanotechnologies over the whole product life cycle (raw material extraction, manufacturing, use,
disposal, and recycling).  The matrix approach compares the additional human health risks with
the benefits directly due to nanotechnologies. Also, indirect risks and impacts of
nanotechnologies are compared to risks that are avoided by the use of conventional technologies.
For each case, key factors of influence are identified.

Secondly, a comparative risk model has been developed combining a multi-media model with
pharmacokinetic modeling of nanoparticle behavior. Based upon this framework,  a comparison
of potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology-based remedial technologies are  analyzed.

Consideration of the analysis results provided by this extended model suggests that the choice of
remediation techniques is a trade-off between transportation, treatment energy, and direct
impacts of remediated toxicants and the nanomaterials used to remove or make them unavailable.
The developed life cycle framework is able to assess risks of nanotechnologies in comparative
approaches.  However, the heterogeneity of compounds and processes involved require that
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                  24

specific nanoscale characteristics be determined and it is imperative that corresponding databases
to store such information are created. Once extended, the life cycle analysis framework is
appropriate to analyze the trade-offs between remedial techniques based on nanomaterials versus
conventional materials.
Functional Optical Polymer Nanoparticles: Uses and Toxicology
Martin Philbert, Sr. Assoc. Dean for Research, School of Public Health, Univ. of Michigan

Nanomaterials are here.  "Nano" is far from a monolithic approach; the chemistry, physics, and
material science aspects of nanotechnology allow for smaller, brighter, faster components as well
as novel physical properties below 100 nm.  Nanotechnology also allows for bottom-up
construction, formulation of molecular assemblies, and ultimately, control. Existing
nanotechniques include electro-wetting, optical fibers, dendrimers, liposomes, nanoporous
materials, and macromaterials composed of aspect ratio fibers.

Probes encapsulated by biologically localized embedding (PEBBLEs) may be synthesized with
diameters in the range 20-60 nm.  PEBBLEs protect dye from cellular artifacts and also protect
the cellular environment from dye toxicity. PEBBLEs allow for physical and chemical quality
control of size distribution, detergent content, oxygen yield, photobleaching, pH stability, non-
specific protein binding, leaching tests, colloidal stability, dye labeling efficiency, and magnetic

Matrices include hydrophobic materials (e.g., plasticized polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and
polydecylmethacrylate); hydrophilic materials (e.g., polyacrylamide-hydrogel); and amphiphilic
materials (e.g., sol-gel and ormasil).  Sensors are prepared as a result of polymer matrix and
synthesis techniques, either micro-emulsion or a modified Stober method.

Examples of uses include optical imaging of nitric oxide in living cells, quantitative intracellular
nitric oxide measurements, and intracellular 3-D registration of sensors. Other applications
include the detection of small molecules and ions and the measurement of electric fields in cells.

In 1906, Einstein formulated the theory of Brownian rotational diffusion.  This rotation has now
been visualized with a single nanoparticle, prepared by a combination of physical and chemical
nanofabrication processes. Miniaturization reduces observation time from days to seconds and
allows for determination of viscosity, temperature, and/or magnetic fields.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop                                                 25

   Attachment 1: Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop Agenda
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                        U.S. EPA Region 5, September 6-7, 2006

 9:15- 10:10

 10:40- 10:50
 10:50- 11:20
 11:20- 12:00
 12:00- 1:00

Introduction and Overview

Welcome and Opening Thoughts
Introduction to Nanotechnology for Site
Worldwide Nanotechology Status
Cases of Nanotechnology Use at Superfund Sites
Site Remediation Case Study
Lunch on own
Panel Session 1:
Zerovalent Iron Nanoparticles

Panel Discussion 1: Site Remediation
Panel Session 2:
Various Nanoparticles
Panel Discussion 2: Site Remediation (cont'd.)

Charles Maurice
& Warren Layne
Rick Karl
Wei-Xian Zhang

Barbara Karn

Martha Otto
Mary Logan

Wei-Xian Zhang
Paul Tratnyek
Krishna Reddy

Erica Forzani
Shas Mattigod
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                       U.S. EPA Region 5, September 6-7, 2006
                                       DAY 2
 9:15- 10:00
 10:00- 10:15
 10:15- 11:00
 11:00- 11:30
 11:30- 12:30

Welcome/Brief Day 1 Recap
Nanotechnology Life-Cycle Analysis
Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology
Poster Presentations
Lunch on own
Panel Session 3:
Nanotechnology Risks

Panel Discussion 3: Nanotechnology Risks
Panel Session 4:
Human Health Impacts
Panel Discussion 4: Nanotechnology Risks
Charles Maurice
Barbara Karn

Aatish Salvi
Greg Lowry
Shane Journeay
Joyce Tsuji
Fionna Mowat
Yvan Wenger
Oliver Jolliet
Martin Philbert
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                      Attachment 2: Speaker Biographies
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                                Speaker Biographies
Erica Forzani
Erica Forzani is an Assistant Research Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at
Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe, Arizona.  She joined ASU in 2003 as research
associate in N.J. Tao's group after receiving her Ph.D. in chemistry in 1999 from Cordoba
National University, Argentina and holding a post doctoral position at the University of Buenos
Aires, Argentina from 2000 to 2003.  For the past few years, she has been working on the
development of nanosensors for chemical and biochemical detection of environmental and health
care analytes, using different methods based on optical, electrical, and acoustic  detection. Her
current research interest is the analytical performance optimization of new liquid and gas phase
detection sensing devices.
Olivier Jolliet

Olivier Jolliet is an Associate Professor in Environmental Health Science at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor and is one of the founding members of the Center for Risk Science and
Communication. His research and teaching programs aim to assess environmental risks and
impacts of chemicals and innovative technologies in order to 1) assess the life cycle risks,
impacts, and benefits related to new technologies (e.g., nanotechnologies, telecommunication
systems) and materials in order to prevent emissions and guide the development of these
technologies; 2) develop a flexible risk assessment framework, enabling specialists to contribute
to an interdisciplinary comparative approach from chemical emissions to risks and impacts; and
3) model population-based exposure, intake fractions, and pharmacokinetics for outdoor and
indoor chemical emissions in a consistent way.

He co-initiated the UNEP/SETAC (United Nations Environment Program / Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) Life Cycle Initiative and is the scientific manager of
its Life Cycle Impact Assessment program. Olivier Jolliet obtained M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
building physics, the latter in 1988 from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne
(EPFL). He held a postdoctoral position at the Silsoe Research Institute (England) and was a
visiting scholar at both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and University of
California at Berkeley.  Between 1999 and 2005, he was an assistant professor at the EPFL in
Switzerland, where he headed the Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle Systems Group. In 2005,
Olivier Jolliet was appointed an Associate Professor with tenure at the University of Michigan.
Shane Journeay

Originally from Liverpool, Nova Scotia, Canada, Shane Journeay completed his B.S. and M.S.
degrees at the University of Ottawa. His masters degree focused on human cardiovascular and
thermoregulatory control. He has an active interest in human health and performance physiology
in extreme environments. Shane has worked extensively in the area of industrial soft tissue
injuries in both Canada and the United States. Specifically he has been employed with Human
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Performance Systems (Waterville, Maine) and was involved in industrial ergonomic analysis, as
well as in the prevention and treatment of accumulation trauma injuries. He has also completed
research as an ergonomics & environmental health and safety specialist with Nortel Networks.
Shane is currently finishing his Ph.D. thesis in toxicology and nanotechnology at the University
of Saskatchewan.  His research has been funded by awards from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to
study the toxicology and biocompatibility of nanomaterials. He is interested in both the
occupational and environmental health aspects of nanotechnology as well the therapeutic
potential  of nanomedicine.  Shane has given many invited talks on nanotechnology and its
relevance to human and environmental health and recently represented Canada at the
International Space University summer session program in Strasbourg, France, where he
completed an international  team project on micro and nanotechnologies in the space industry.
Warren Layne

He has a BA in Chemistry from Boston University, MS in Inorganic Analytical Chemistry from
University of Massachusetts, and Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry from Northeastern University in
Boston, with postdoctoral training at Harvard School of Public Health in Nuclear Medicine. He
also has years of industrial experience in Radiopharmaceutical research and  has been an
Assistant Professor at University of Connecticut Medical Center, University of Texas at
Galveston and Baylor University in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Layne has  spent 16 years at the Environmental Protection Agency, 11 years as Toxic Release
Inventory Coordinator in Dallas, Texas (Region 6) in the Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Division and 5 years as a Quality Assurance Plan Reviewer, Regional Sample Coordinator, and 2
years as the Nanotechnology Expert for Chicago, Illinois (Region 5) in the Superfund Division.
 He was a coauthor of Nanotechnology White Paper, participated in EPA-sponsored National
Nanotechnology Conferences and presented talks on Nanotechnology in various venues.
Mary Logan

Ms. Logan is an experienced Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in the Superfund Division at the
EPA Region 5 offices (Chicago).  Ms. Logan joined EPA in 1985 in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting program.  In 1988, she transferred to the Superfund
program. From 1992 until 2004, Ms. Logan worked in the Superfund program at the EPA
Region 2 offices (New York City). She works on large and complex Superfund sites and
primarily has worked on sites with an enforcement component. Ms. Logan has worked with both
federal agency and private responsible parties. Ms. Logan frequently serves as an instructor for a
variety of environmental topics.  She has also frequently presented or moderated at conferences,
especially related to sediment issues. Prior to joining the EPA, Ms. Logan worked in research
laboratories. Ms. Logan received her M.S. in environmental and occupational health sciences
from the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago and her B.A. in biology
from the University of Chicago.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Greg Lowry

Gregory V. Lowry is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and has been at Carnegie Mellon University since 2001. He received his B.S. in
chemical engineering from the University of California at Davis, his M.S. in civil and
environmental engineering from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and his Ph.D. in civil
and environmental engineering from Stanford University.  His general area of research is
environmental nanotechnologies including nanoparticle characterization, elucidating the
reactions they promote, and their fate, transport, and toxicity in the environment. Dr. Lowry's
research group currently investigates the use of novel surface coatings to enhance the mobility
of zerovalent iron and metal oxide nanoparticles used in the subsurface for  aquifer restoration
and that promote adsorption of nanoparticles to the contaminant-water interface. Dr. Lowry
also has projects on sediment remediation and contaminant transport in porous media, including
developing and evaluating "active" sediment caps that destroy and/or sequester PCBs and
several projects on carbon sequestration.
Shas Mattigod
Dr. Mattigod has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from University of Mysore, an M.S. in Civil
Engineering fro University of New Hampshire and a Ph. D. in Environmental Chemistry fro
Washington State University and research at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories for the last
eight years. His interests include Characterizing and developing radiation methods for liquid and
solid effluents, leachates, RCRA wastes, contaminated soil, and groundwater from CERCLA
Sites, Environmental Chemistry and Project Management. He is currently concentrated on the
preparation and testing of functionalized nanoporous ceramic sorbents for the removal of at least
30 inorganic contaminants from contaminated sites.
Charles Maurice

Since April 2004, Chuck Maurice has served as the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD) Superfund & Technology Liaison (STL) to Region 5.  As such, he holds a joint
appointment with the Office of Science Policy in ORD and with the Innovative Systems &
Technology Branch in the Region 5 Superfund Division. Chuck provides technical support
regarding hazardous substances both through his own expertise as an ecological risk assessor and
by coordinating with other scientists in the technical support centers and laboratories throughout
ORD. He also communicates Regional research priorities and needs to ORD.

From 1995 to 2004, Chuck was an ecologist and ecological risk assessor the Region 5  Office of
Strategic Environmental Analysis (OSEA), both in the immediate office and on the Critical
Ecosystems Team.  Chuck was an ecological risk expert, corrective action manager, and permit
writer in the RCRA Permitting Branch, Region 5 Waste Management Division from 1993 to
1995. Before coming to EPA, Chuck was a senior ecologist and ecological risk assessor for the
Superfund contractor Ecology & Environment, Inc.Chuck holds a B.S. degree (1980) in
environmental biology from Eastern Illinois University, a M.S. degree (1982) in biological
sciences from Bowling Green State University, and a Ph.D. (1989) in plant biology from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Fionna Mowat
Fionna Mowat, Ph.D., is a Senior Managing Scientist with Exponent's Health Sciences practice.
She is experienced in human health and ecological risk assessment and is trained in biomedical
engineering. Her primary focus is conducting exposure assessments of various chemicals,
mineral fibers, and nanomaterials in occupational settings and consumer products. She has
presented several papers on nanomaterials at conferences and, with Dr. Tsuji, is a co-chair of the
2007 carbon nanotube workshop. Most recently, she presented a review of nanotechnologies
used in the water market with discussion of their potential benefits and risks to human health and
the environment, at the National Standards and Technology Institute of
Nanotechnology Conference.
Martin Philbert

Martin Philbert received his Ph.D. in 1988 in neurochemistry and experimental neuropathology
from the Royal Postgraduate Medical School of London University in England.  There he
received a Medical Research Council Scholarship in experimental neuropathology. In the spring
of 1988, Dr. Philbert was recruited as postdoctoral fellow in neurotoxicology at Rutgers
University. While at Rutgers, Dr. Philbert investigated mechanisms by which chemicals that
gain access to the central nervous system produce specific neurotoxic effects. In 1995, he joined
the Toxicology Faculty at the University of Michigan as an assistant professor. Dr. Philbert is a
Professor of Toxicology and Senior Associate Dean for Research at the University of Michigan,
School of Public Health. He has provided service on a variety of committees at the University
including the President's Commission on Undergraduate Education, University Taskforce on
Multidisciplinary Teaching, and the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals.
Currently, Dr. Philbert provides consultation to the National Cancer Institute, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, National Toxicology Program, and Board of Scientific
Counselors of the EPA and he is a scientific advisor to the International Life Sciences Institute in
Washington, D.C. He teaches courses in general pathology, toxicological pathology, and
mechanisms of neurotoxicity.  Dr. Philbert's research interests include the development of
nanotechnology for intracellular measurement of biochemicals and ions and for the early
detection and treatment of brain tumors. He is also actively engaged in the investigation of
mechanisms of chemically-induced energy deprivation syndromes in the central nervous system.
He has published more than 100 scholarly manuscripts, book chapters, and abstracts and is the
recipient of the 2001 Society of Toxicology Achievement Award. Dr. Philbert holds or has held
grant awards from the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, DOD - Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (DARPA), EPA, and
W.M. Keck Foundation.
Joyce Tsuji

Joyce Tsuji, Ph.D., DABT, is a Principal with Exponent's Health Sciences practice and is a
board-certified toxicologist with 19 years of experience in toxicology and risk assessment. Her
particular areas of interest include exposure assessment and toxicology of a variety of chemicals,
including those from industrial releases and in consumer products. Dr. Tsuji has directed several
projects to survey the available literature and assess potential exposure and risks of specific
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

nanosized materials used in consumer products. She also organized and chaired a symposium on
health risks of nanomaterials at the Society of Toxicology (SOT) Annual Meeting in 2005 and
published the proceedings. Dr. Tsuji has presented at multiple conferences on applications and
risk assessment of nanomaterials and has recently organized a workshop on health risk
assessment of carbon nanotubes for the 2007 SOT Annual Meeting.
Paul Tratnyek

Paul G. Tratnyek is currently Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and
Engineering at the OGI School of Science & Engineering of the Oregon Health & Science
University (Portland, OR). He received his Ph.D. in applied chemistry from the Colorado School
of Mines in 1987; served as a National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow at the EPA
laboratory in Athens, Georgia, during 1988; and as a Research Associate at the  Swiss Federal
Institute for Water Resources and Water Pollution Control (EAWAG) from 1989 to 1991. His
research addresses the pathways, kinetics, mechanisms, and other fundamental, molecular
aspects of the reactivity of organic substances in the geochemical environment. Since 1992, Dr.
Tratnyek has led research on  the chemistry of permeable  reactive barriers containing zerovalent
iron (http://cgr.ebs.ogi.edu/iron).  He co-organized the first symposium on contaminant
remediation with zerovalent metals (Anaheim, CA,  April 1995) and the first major symposium
on the environmental fate of fuel oxygenates such as MTBE (San Francisco, CA, April 1997).
Related information is available at http://www.ebs.ogi.edu/tratnyek/.
Yvan Wenger

Yvan Wenger obtained a B.S. degree in biochemistry in 2003 at the University of Geneva and
an M.S. degree in natural environmental sciences from both the Universities of Geneva and
Lausanne. As a part of his masters thesis, he spent one year at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) specializing in modeling techniques such as mass balance
modeling. Since September 2005, he has been pursuing a doctoral degree involving
nanoparticles modeling at the School of Public Health, University of Michigan.
Krishna R. Reddy
Dr. Krishna Reddy is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Dr. Reddy received his Ph.D. from the Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago. He received gold medals for being first in his class of B.S. students in
civil engineering at the Osmania University and M.S. students in geotechnology at the Indian
Institute of Technology in Roorkee. Dr. Reddy is a professional engineer in the State of Illinois
and he worked as a civil engineer and project manager in consulting engineering companies for
several years prior to joining the UIC. Dr. Reddy's consulting and research expertise includes
geotechnical engineering, remediation of contaminated sites, waste containment systems, and
waste material characterization and reuse.  Dr. Reddy has published over 150 technical papers
on various topics in geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. He is also the author of
the book Geoenvironmental Engineering: Site Remediation,  Waste  Containment, and Emerging
Waste Management Technologies published by John Wiley.  Dr. Reddy is Editor of the journal
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Land Contamination & Reclamation and he serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Soil
and Sediment Contamination, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering., and
Journal of Hazardous Materials.  He has received several awards and honors for excellence in
teaching, research, and professional service.  See www.uic.edu/~kreddy for more information.
Barbara Karn

Barbara Karn is an environmental scientist at the EPA. She recently returned from a detail to
the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars.  Her focus is "green" nanotechnologies - including using green chemistry, green
engineering, and environmentally benign manufacturing to make new nanomaterials and
products or using nanotechnology to prevent pollution in current processes. Nanotechnology is
new enough that there is a huge opportunity to get it as environmentally right as possible.
Dr. Karn has managed portfolios of research grants programs for pollution prevention
technologies and nanotechnologies at the EPA Office of Research and Development. She holds
a Ph.D. from Florida International University in marine ecology with emphasis on kinetics of
nutrient cycling and a B.S.  degree in chemistry from the Ohio State University. Dr. Karn has
worked in industry, academia, and government.  Her professional background ranges from
electroplating to polymers, from environmental consulting to small business owner, and from
academic administrator to water quality management planner.
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

                         Attachment 3: Participant List
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation Workshop

Participant List
Last Name First Name Title Company/ Affiliation Address 1 City State Zip Code Phone Number
Wm. 1'urpin
Environmental Scientist
General Manager
Brownfields Coordinator
VP Manuiactoring
Environmental Engineer
Senior Scientist
Environmental Scientist

Senior Project Engineer
Project Manager
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
Toda America Incorporated
CI EM I fill
US EPA, Region 9
US EPA, Region 4
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
State of Michigan - Department
of Environmental Quality
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 9
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Phepls Dodge Corporation
Environmental Design
International, Inc
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
1920 North Thoreau Dr.,
Suite 110
4287 s Reindeer Ct
75 Hawthorne Street
61 Eorsyth St.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Suite 413
629 Bross St.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Constiution Hall,
3rd Floor, South
West Allegan Street
77 W. Jackson Blvd
75 Hawthorne St.
77 W.Jackson Blvd.
2600 Bull St.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
565 West Adams St.
188 W. Randolph St.
20th Floor
9780 East Sanchez Road
200 South Michigan Ave.
San Francisco
San Francisco
S afford
(847) 397-7060
(404) 562-8553
(303) 952-4520
(517) 373-9828
(415) 972-3060
(803) 896-4046
(847) 508-0905
(847) 397-7060
ext. 128

Last Name First Name Title Company/ Affiliation Address 1 City State Zip Code Phone Number
Staff Professional
Hazardous Substances
Assistant Research
Environmental Protection
Project Manager
ORD Superfund &
Technology Liaison to
Region 9
Research Scientist
Principal Engineer
Senior Environmental
Manager of New
Business Development
Associate Professor
Doctoral Student
Environmental Specialist

GcoSyntcc Consultants
TechLaw, Inc.
US EPA, Region 5
Department of Electrical
Engineering, Arizona State Univ.
US EPA, IIQ, Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement
Environmental Design
International, Inc.
Black & Vealch
US EPA, Region 9
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Science Operations Ctr
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
TODA American Inc.
University of Michigan
University of Saskatchewan

55 West Wacker Drh c ,
Suite 11 00
1001 I Street
12th Floor
105 W. Madison
Suite 900
77 W. Jackson Blvd

1200 Pennsylvania Ave
200 South Michigan Ave.
101 North Wacker Dr.
75 Hawthorne St.
2801 Progress Rd.
6 Terry Drive
Suite 300
525 West Allegan
1920 North Thoreau Dr.
Suite 110
109 South Observatory

1.200 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W. 5205P


San Francisco
Ann Arbor








(916) 327-4206

(3 1.2) 683-7857
(415) 972-3054
(608) 221-6370
(517) 335-3390
(847) 397-7060
(734) 647-0394

(202) 343-9704

Last Name
Mar cams

First Name
\ ictoi

Chemist/ QA Coordinator
QA Team Leader
Associate Engineer

Office Automation Clerk
Associate Professor
Regional Science Liaison

ORD Superfuud &
Technology Liaison to
Region 5
Chief, Innovative Systems
& Technology Branch
Project Manager
Environmental Engineer
Company/ Affiliation
Atlantic Richfield Co., a BP
Affiliated Company
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
ENVIRON International Corp.
Lehigh University
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
Carnegie Mellon University
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
ITS EPA, RegionS

Pacific Northwest National Lab
US EPA, ORD & Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5 Office of Science
Ecosystems & Communities
Earth Tech, Inc.
US EPA, Region 5
Address 1
28100 loickParkv\a>
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
123 North Wacker Dr.
Suite 250
13 East. Packer Ave.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
5000 Forbes Ave
1 19 Porter Hall CEE Dept
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 W. Jackson Blvd.

77 W. Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
10 S. Riverside Plaza
Suite 1900
77 West Jackson Blvd.


Zip Code

Phone Number
(630) 836 7120
(3 12) 886-7336
ext 225
(610) 758-4519
(412) 268-2948

(3 12) 353-9229
(3 12) 886-6760

Last Name First Name Title Company/ Affiliation Address 1 City State Zip Code Phone Number
Senior Managing
Research Associate
Senior Engineer
Project Manager
Chief, Field Servies
Environmental Engineer
Sr. Assoc Dean for
Research & Professor
Environmental Scientist

Office of Regional
Enforcement Coordinator
Environmental Engineer
Program Manager
Scientist Exponent
US EPA, Region 5
TOD A American Inc.
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
University of Michigan
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
University of Illinois at Chicago
US EPA, Region 5
NanoBusiuess Alliance
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
ENSR Corporation
1.49 Commonwealth Dr.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
1920 North Thoreau Dr.
430 First Avenue North
Suite 720
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W. 5205P

77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Department of Civil and
Materials Engineering
842 West Taylor St.
77 West Jackson Blvd.

77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
N2890 Pewaukee Rd.
2000 NW Walker Road
15375 SE 30th PI,
Suite 250
Menlo Park
Ann Arbor



(847) 397-7060
(612) 373-0249
(703) 603-8853
(734) 763-4523
(847) 568-8414
(3 12) 353-6756
(262) 532-2040
(425) 519-8768

Last Name First Name Title Company/ Affiliation Address 1 City State Zip Code Phone Number
Environmental Scientist
Legal Fellow
GEOS Program Manager
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Region 5
US EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
University of Michigan
US EPA, Region 5
Chicago-Kent College of Law
US EPA, Region 5
Lehigh University
77 West Jackson Blvd.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
EPA West Room 4140, .
1200 Pennsylvania Ave

536 S Clark St
565 West Adams St.
77 West Jackson Blvd.
13 East Packer Avenue
Ann Arbor
(202) 566-2030
(734) 647-0394
(630) 667-3671