Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund



Download 41.8 Kb.
Date16.03.2017
Size41.8 Kb.

Nanotechnology – Applications and Implications for Superfund

  • RISKeLearning
  • Session 9: November 8, 2007
  • “Looking Forward:
  • Nanotechnology and Superfund”
  • Moderator: Heather Henry, SBRP/NIEHS
  • Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy
  • Randy Wentsel
  • National Program Director, Contaminated Sites/Resource Conservation, ORD/EPA
  • Where Does the Nano Go?
  • David Rejeski
  • Director,
  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,
  • Woodrow Wilson Center

Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications

  • Product Use and Diversity
  • Government Collaborations
  • Funding Allocation
  • Research Approaches
    • EPA STAR
    • NTP
    • NIEHS Grantees
  • Session 1: January 18, 2007
  • “Introduction to Nanotechnology”
  • Nora Savage, EPA ORD NCER
  • Nigel Walker, NIEHS NTP
  • RISKeLearning
  • Advantages to Nanotechnology:
  • New properties
  • Enable greater efficiency
  • Nano-enabled
  • consumer products
  • Walker
  • Session 2: February 13, 2007
  • “Metal Remediation”
  • Mason Tomson, Rice University
  • Shas Mattigod, PNNL
  • Nanotechnology: Applications
  • RISKeLearning
  • Session 3: March 15, 2007
  • “DNAPL Remediation”
  • Matt Hull, Luna Innovations, Inc.
  • Peter Vikesland, Virginia Tech
  • Greg Lowry, Carnegie Mellon University
  • Groundwater Remediation
  • Drinking Water
  • TCE, CT
  • DNAPLs
  • Mattigod
  • SAMMS
  • Nano Magnetite
  • NZVI, EZVI
  • As, Cr, Hg
  • Actinides
  • Lowry
  • Session 4: April 19, 2007
  • “Superfund Site Remediation”
  • Marti Otto, EPA OSRTI
  • Mary Logan, RPM, EPA Region 5
  • Nanotechnology: Applications
  • RISKeLearning
  • Session 5: May 31, 2007
  • “Environmental Sensors”
  • Paul Gilman, ORCAS
  • Desmond Stubbs, ORCAS
  • Ian Kennedy, UC - Davis
  • Groundwater and Soil
  • Remediation
  • TCE
  • TCA
  • DNAPLs
  • PCE
  • NZVI
  • EZVI
  • BNP
  • Wearable
  • Real-Time
  • Qualitative
  • Quantifiable
  • Dog-on-a-Chip
  • Exposure Monitors
  • Environ. Detectors
  • DNA Assay
  • Gilman, Stubbs
  • Logan
  • Environment
  • Session 6: August 16, 2007
  • “Fate and Transport”
  • Richard Zepp, EPA, NERL/ERD
  • Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University
  • Nanotechnology: Implications
  • RISKeLearning
  • Session 7: September 12, 2007
  • “Human Toxicology and
  • Risk Assessment”
  • Session 8: October 18, 2007
  • “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology”
  • Nanoparticles
  • NOM
  • complexation
  • filtration
  • Westerhoff
  • Natural
  • Organic
  • Matter
  • Sediments
  • NP
  • (NP)x
  • UV
  • sorption
  • aggregation
  • Session 7: September 12, 2007
  • “Human Toxicology and
  • Risk Assessment”
  • Kevin Dreher, US EPA
  • Agnes Kane & Robert Hurt, Brown University
  • Stephen Roberts, University of Florida
  • Nanotechnology: Implications
  • RISKeLearning
  • Session 8: October 18, 2007
  • “Nanomaterials and Ecotoxicology”
  • Stephen Klaine, Clemson University
  • Patrick Larkin, Santa Fe Comm. College
  • Control 45 min 1 hour 20 hours
  • Klaine
  • Larkin
  • Unique “Nano-ness”
  • could mean
  • unique toxicities
  • relative to
  • bulk materials.
  • Kane

Challenges

  • Challenges
    • Diversity of products, rapidly evolving
      • Variability
      • Quality Control
      • Characterization
    • Environmental interactions, which ones are critical?
  • Opportunities
    • Applications
    • Collaborations
    • Funding
  • Future Directions
    • Policy: David Rejeski
    • Research: Randy Wentsel
    • Discussion: Audience!!
  • Nanotechnology: Applications and Implications for Superfund
  • RISKeLearning

EPA

  • EPA
  • Michael Gill (ORD/Reg 9), Marian Olsen (Reg 1), Marti Otto (OSWER/TIFSD), Mitch Lasat (ORD/NCER), Warren Layne (Reg 5), Charles Maurice (ORD/Reg 5), Jayne Michaud (OSWER), Nora Savage (ORD/NCER), Barbara Walton (ORD), Randy Wentsel (ORD)
  • CLU-IN Staff, & Jeff Heimerman (TIFSD)
  • SBRP/NIEHS
  • Kathy Ahlmark, Beth Anderson, David Balshaw, Heather Henry, Claudia Thompson, Sally Tinkle, William Suk
  • MDB, NIEHS-Contractor
  • Maureen Avakian, Larry Reed, Larry Whitson
  • RISKeLearning
  • THANKS!
  • Where Does the Nano Go?
  • End-of-Life Strategies for
  • Nanotechnologies
  • David Rejeski
  • Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
  • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
  • Washington, DC
  • Some History
  • 1976 Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal.
  • 1976 President Gerald Ford signs the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce environmental and human health risks.
  • 1977 President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act Amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect human health.
  • 1978 Residents discover that Love Canal, New York, is contaminated by buried leaking chemical containers.
  • 1980 Congress creates Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites.
  • Writing with atoms. D.M. Eigler, E.K. Schweizer. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope. Nature 344, 524-526 (1990).
  • Why Address Nanotechnology End-of-Life Issues?
  • Little is known about effects of nanomaterials and nanowastes on human health or the environment
  • Nanomaterials may behave differently in the environment than bulk materials
  • Nanomaterials are already in commerce and in the waste stream
  • No law deals specifically with nanotechnology

Nano Products in the Waste Stream

  • Disposable
  • (Use for Less
  • Than 1 Year)
  • Short-Term
  • Durable
  • (Use for
  • 1-5 Years)
  • Long-Term
  • Durable
  • (Use for
  • Over 5 Years)
  • Consumable
  • (Does Not
  • Enter Waste
  • Stream Directly)
  • Over 5 Years
  • Less Than
  • 1 Year
  • 1-5 Years
  • Indirectly Enters
  • Waste Stream
  • Application
  • Material/device
  • Estimated Production Rates
  • (metric tons/year)
  • 2004
  • 2005-2010
  • 2011-2020
  • Structural applications
  • Ceramics, catalysts, composites, coatings, thin films, powders, metals
  • 10
  • 103
  • 104-105
  • Skincare products
  • Metal oxides (titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide)
  • 103
  • 103
  • 103 or less
  • ICT
  • Single wall nanotubes, nano electronics, opto-electro materials (titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, iron oxide), organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs)
  • 10
  • 102
  • 103 or more
  • Biotechnology
  • Nanoencapsulates, targeted drug delivery, bio-compatible, quantum dots, composites, biosensors
  • < 1
  • 1
  • 10
  • Instruments, sensors, characterization
  • MEMS, NEMS, SPM, clip-pen lithography, direct write tools
  • 10
  • 102
  • 102-103
  • Environmental
  • Nanofiltration, membranes
  • 10
  • 102
  • 103-104
  • Source: RS/RAE. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK. Table 4.1. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
  • Note: Estimated global production rates for various nanomaterials and devices are based on international chemical journals and reviews and market research.
  • Estimated Global Production Rates for Various Nanomaterials and Devices
  • The Case of Carbon Nanotubes
  • 27 firms producing carbon nanotubes
  • globally. Production concentrated in the
  • U.S. and Japan but shifting to Korea and
  • China.
  • 108 metric tons produced in year 2004
  • >1000 metric tons annual production estimated within five years
  • End-of-life issues (incineration, land-filling, recycling) unresolved
  • From: “Analysis of Nanotechnology from an Industrial Ecology Perspective,” Deanna Lekas, Yale
  • School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2005.
  • Uses: sporting goods, conductive composites, batteries,
  • fuel cells, solar cells, field emission displays, biomedical
  • uses, fibers/fabrics, sensors.
  • 20
  • 4
  • 3
  • Carbon Nanotube Production Inputs
  • Inputs for Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Production Process
  • Approx. Quantities to Produce 1 kg CNT/yr
  • Process gases:
  • Acetylene
  • Ammonia
  • Methane
  • Hydrogen
  • 708 L
  • 708 L
  • 708 L
  • 708 L
  • Ceramic catalyst support particles
  • 170 g
  • Iron, cobalt, and nickel compounds
  • 80 g
  • Acid bath (e.g., hydrochloric, nitric, hydrofluoric)
  • 0.67 L
  • Note: Inputs from one CNT manufacturer using the CVD production process.

Waste and the Nanotech Life Cycle

  • Extraction & Processing
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanomaterial
  • Use
  • End-of-Life
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanoproduct
  • Distribution / Transport
  • “The potential benefits of nanotechnologies should be assessed in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA).” UK Royal Society (2004), Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.
  • ?
  • Amount of nano waste
  • Complexity of nano waste
  • CAA = Clean Air Act
  • CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
  • CWA = Clean Water Act
  • FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
  • RCRA = Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act
  • TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act
  • Product Programs in this context refer to FIFRA, TSCA, and CAA §211.
  • CAA, CWA, RCRA
  • CERCLA
  • Extraction & Processing
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanomaterial
  • Use
  • End-of-Life
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanoproduct
  • RCRA, CERCLA
  • CAA, CWA, RCRA, TSCA
  • CERCLA
  • Product Programs
  • Distribution / Transport
  • CAA, CWA,
  • RCRA, CERCLA and
  • Product Programs
  • RCRA
  • RCRA
  • Regulations Across the Life Cycle
  • THONG: Protesting Nanotex outside Eddie Bauer, Chicago
  • http://www.treehugger .com/files/2005/05/nanotech_street_1.php
  • ETC Group: Nano-Hazard Symbol Competition
  • http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=604
  • Environmental Defense
  • (with DuPont)
  • http://www.nanoriskframework.org
  • NGO Activities
  • NRDC: Supermodel Angela Lindvall talks nanotechnology
  • http://www.itsyournature.org/video/Tips/183
  • Extraction
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanomaterial
  • Use
  • Disposal
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanoproduct
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Public Perception Concerns
  • “We’re gonna be killed or cured.”
  • “Industry can deliver better products, like better paints. But what about the guy who is making the paint, or spraying it?”
  • “What happens if they don’t break down? How do we get rid of them?”
  • “Are there labels?”
  • “It’s like nuclear power. It’s a great concept, but what do you do with the waste products?”
  • “It’s so small, it can wind up in places you don’t expect it… that’s a worry – it getting in unintended places and having unintended consequences.”
  • “What is going to be the long-term effect?
  • Extraction
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanomaterial
  • Use
  • Disposal
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanoproduct
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Quotes from: Macoubrie, Jane. (2005) “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” January. and Francesconi, Robert. (2005) “Facilitator’s Report of Findings: Nanotechnology Experimental Issue Groups,” July.
  • Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/132/where-does-the-nano-go-new-report-on-end-of-life-regulation-of-nanotechnologies
  • Key objectives:
  • Clean up inactive and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
  • Create incentives for proper future handling of hazardous substances.
  • Addresses contamination the system failed to address prospectively.
  • CERCLA
  • Is there a hazardous substance (or pollutant or contaminant)?
  • Is there a release or substantial threat of release?
  • Is the release from a facility?
  • Is the release into the environment?
  • Four Key Questions
  • Could the Superfund Statute Apply to Nanomaterials?
  • Liability is retroactive, strict, and joint and several for wide range of parties, including:
  • - site owners/operators, generators, and transporters; and
  • - covers federal facilities.
  • Statutory liability approach could:
  • - provide authority to require cleanups, if nanomaterials are determined at a later date to be hazardous substances;
  • - may influence firm behavior today with respect to handling and disposal of nanomaterials.
  • Nanomaterials and CERCLA Liability
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanomaterial
  • Use
  • Disposal
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Manufacture of
  • Nanoproduct
  • Distribution / Transport
  • Liability Impact (psychological)
  • Virtually all of the Superfund statutory authorities are broad enough in theory to cover nanomaterials.
  • Key threshold issue is whether any nanomaterials are or will constitute hazardous substances.
  • Highlights importance of how EPA assesses and designates nanomaterials under CERCLA and other statutes.
  • Emphasizes critical need for EPA to invest in and encourage human health and eco- toxicity data collection and development.
  • Conclusions
  • 68 ........ TRICHLOROETHANE .......................................025323–89–1
  • 69 ........ HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE ..............000077–47–4
  • 70 ........ 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE ............................. 000122–66–7
  • 71 ........ NANOMATERIALS ????
  • 72 ........ VANADIUM .......................................................007440–62–2
  • 73 ........ FORMALDEHYDE ............................................000050–00–0
  • CAS Number
  • Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
  • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
  • HUMAN SERVICES
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and
  • Disease Registry [ATSDR–235]
  • Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated
  • for Set 22 Toxicological Profiles
  • Inclusion of Nanomaterials in Tox Testing
  • Minimize Risks with LCA and DfE
  • Dark Green: Nanotechnology is applied directly to solve environmental problems.
  • Light Green: Nanotechnology provides environmental benefits for other applications.
  • Right Green: Nano-based processes and products are designed to be environmentally low-impact.
  • Large Potential Benefits, Minimal Downsides
  • Convened in October 2006 by:
  • The European Commission’s Nano & Converging Science and Technologies Unit
  • EPA’s Office of Research & Development, and
  • The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
  • Involved international LCA and nano experts
  • Purpose: determine whether existing LCA tools and methods are adequate to use on a new technology
  • Nano LCA
  • Key Conclusions:
  • Use a case-study approach
  • Do not wait to have near-perfect data (won’t exist anyway).
  • Be modest and open about uncertainties.
  • Use a critical and independent review to ensure credibility.
  • Build the knowledge base with an international inventory of evolving nano LCA’s.
  • Use the LCA results to improve the design of products and processes.
  • Promote best practices and successes.
  • For More Information
  • www.nanotechproject.org
  • David Rejeski
  • Phone: (202) 691-4255
  • Email: david.rejeski@wilsoncenter.org
  • Overview of ORD Draft Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS)

OUTLINE

  • Briefing Purpose
  • Nanotechnology Research Strategy (NRS)
    • Background
    • Rationale
    • Key Themes and Questions
    • Anticipated results
  • Path Forward – Next Steps
  • Writing Team

Briefing Purpose

  • Explain EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) draft NRS (relationship to the EPA White Paper and the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Workgroup Report (under NNI)
  • Stimulate discussion on increased collaboration and linkage of research products

Purpose of Strategy

  • Guides the nanotechnology research program within EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD)
  • Describes initiation of ORD in-house research program
  • Builds upon research needs identified in the Agency Nanotechnology White Paper and the NNI
  • Describes key research questions under four themes and seven primary research questions

Rationale

  • Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Interagency Working Group of NSET, (NSTC, 2006)
  • EPA White Paper on Nanotechnology (EPA, 2007)
  • http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf
  • EPA 100/B-07/001 | February 2007
  • www.epa.gov/osa
  • Nanotechnology White Paper
  • Office of the Science Advisor
  • Science Policy Council
  • http://www.epa.gov/OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf

National Collaboration Activities

  • Joint RFAs – DOE, NIEHS/NIH, NIOSH, and NSF
  • Research project collaborations with NTP
  • National research strategy collaborations with CPSC, FDA, NIEHS
  • International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore

International Collaboration Activities

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Chemicals Committee – Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN)
  • International Meetings – Applications & Implications (Region 5)
  • International research strategy collaborations with EC, Singapore
  • ANSI, ISO & ASTM participation

Document Organization

  • Introduction
  • Background
  • Research Strategy Overview
  • Research Themes – for each science question:
    • Background/Program Relevance
    • Research Activities
    • Anticipated Outcomes
  • Implementation and Research Linkages
  • Appendix A – side by side table of White Paper research needs versus ORD research plans
  • Appendix B – ORD Description
  • Life Cycle Stages
  • Environmental Pathways
  • Fate & Transport
  • Exposure
  • Effects
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Management
  • Feedstocks
  • Manufacture
  • Distribution
  • Storage
  • Use
  • Disposal
  • Air
  • Water
  • Soil
  • Food
  • Air
  • Primary
  • contaminants
  • Secondary
  • contaminants
  • Inhalation
  • Ingestion
  • Dermal
  • absorption
  • Ecosystems
  • Health
  • Analytical Detection Method Development
  • Performance
  • Indicators
  • Modeling
  • Economics
  • Regulatory and Voluntary
  • Measures
  • Adaptation/
  • Revitalization/
  • Restoration/
  • Remediation
  • Risk
  • Characterization

Four Research Themes

  • Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure
  • Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods
  • Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies
  • Preventing and Mitigating Risks

Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure

  • Key Science Questions (Two of Four)
  • Which nanomaterials have a high potential for release from a life-cycle perspective?
  • What technologies exist, can be modified, or must be developed to detect and quantify engineered materials in environmental media and biological samples?

Life Cycle Anticipated Outcomes

  • Collaborative effort to identify industries, processes, and products which have relatively high potential to release engineered nanomaterials into the environment
  • Determine the industries of importance and identify where gaps in information preclude a full assessment of emission/release points of concern
  • Produce a systematic assessment of the production, use, and ultimate fate of nanomaterials to understand the potential for emissions/releases into the environment
  • Understand which industries pose the greatest potential to emit/release nanomaterials of concern and to inform decision-makers about the overall impact of engineered nanomaterials
  • Conduct assessments for the highest priority industry categories, results of which will be used to guide industry and nanomaterial selection for assessment.
  • Produce comparative assessments to inform decision-makers at what stage in the lifecycle of engineered nanomaterials interventions could be used to avoid future environmental impacts.

Detection – Anticipated Outcomes

  • Establishment of research partnerships with NIST, NCI and/or DOE for the purpose of characterizing nanomaterials for laboratory studies
  • Development of analytical methods for the detection of carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices
  • Development of analytical methods for the detection of non-carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental matrices
  • In cooperation with other federal agencies develop standardized reference materials in a variety of representative environmental matrices.

Theme 1: Sources, Fate, Transport, and Exposure

  • What are the major processes that govern the environmental fate of engineered nanomaterials, and how are these related to physical and chemical properties of those materials?
  • What are the indicators of exposure that will result from releases of engineered nanomaterials?

Environmental Fate and Transport – Anticipated Outcomes

  • Develop a scientific understanding of the processes that govern the fate and transport of engineered nanomaterials.
  • Develop a scientific understanding and measure the chemical and physical properties of engineered nanomaterials and how they influence and impact the fate and transport processes.
  • Identify the exposure pathways associated with production, end-use and disposal in differing environmental matrices of engineered nanomaterials.
  • Improve the scientific understanding of detection methodologies for quantifying engineered nanomaterials.
  • Develop multiple predictive models for understanding and measuring the transport of engineered nanomaterials

Exposure – Anticipated Results

  • Identification of the dominant exposure pathways to ecological receptors of interest
  • An assessment of the applicability of the Agency’s current exposure models to nanomaterials
  • Identification of the physicochemical properties required to inform exposure
  • Identification of indicators of exposure through the application of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics.

Theme 2: Human Health and Ecological Research to Inform Risk Assessment and Test Methods

  • Key Science Question
  • What are the effects of engineered nanomaterials on human and ecological receptors, and how can those effects be best quantified and predicted?

Human and Ecological Effects

  • Characterization of NM health and ecological effects; identification of physicochemical properties and factors that regulate NM dosimetry, fate, and toxicity
  • Identification of testing methods/approaches to predict in vivo toxicity of NMs; characterizing molecular expression profiles that may provide biomarkers of NM exposure and/or toxicity
  • Provide the necessary expertise for review of premanufacture notice applications and assess the adequacy of harmonized test guidelines from NMs to OPPTS and internationally to OECD.
  • Health and ecological research will address the gap in our knowledge regarding the toxicity of nanomaterials which has impeded the ability to conduct accurate life cycle analysis.

Theme 3: Risk Assessment Methods and Case Studies

  • Key Science Question
  • How do Agency risk assessment and regulatory approaches need to be amended to incorporate the special characteristics of engineered nanomaterials?

Risk Assessment – Anticipated Outcomes

  • CEA approach will be used for case studies of selected nanomaterials
  • Three case studies incorporating peer consultation input will be developed in FY07 for evaluation in a workshop.
  • A summary report of the workshop identifying and prioritizing research needed to support comprehensive assessment of selected nanomaterials will be developed in FY08
  • Identification of special properties of nanomaterials in developing data and carrying out risk assessments.

Theme 4: Preventing and Mitigating Risks

  • Key Science Question
  • What technologies or practices can be applied to minimize risks of engineered nanomaterials throughout their life cycle, and to use nanotechnology to minimize other risks?

Risk Mitigation – Anticipated Results

  • An evaluation of the efficacy of existing pollution control approaches and technologies to manage releases of engineered nanomaterials to all media during their production.
  • ORD will collaborate with industry and academia to report on opportunities to reduce the environmental implications of nanomaterial production by employing greener synthesis approaches
  • ORD will identify design production processes that are sustainable, minimize or eliminate any emissions/releases, and reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing of nanomaterials and products
  • ORD will report on the viability and performance on the use of nanotechnology for the abatement and remediation of conventional toxic pollution.

Anticipated Outcomes and Next Steps

  • Focused research projects to address risk assessment and management needs for nanomaterials in support of the various environmental statues for which the EPA is responsible
  • Currently undergoing Agency-wide review
  • Planned Federal agency (NSET) review
  • External peer review – December 2007

Writing Team

  • Nora Savage, Co-Lead
  • Randy Wentsel, Co-lead
  • Michele Aston, NERL Douglas Mckinney, NRMRL
  • J. Michael Davis, NCEA Jeff Morris, OSP
  • Steve Diamond, NHEERL Dave Mount, NHEERL
  • Kevin Dreher, NHEERL Carlos Nunez, NRMRL
  • Maureen Gwinn, NHEERL Chon Shoaf, NCEA
  • Thomas Holdsworth, NRMRL Barb Walton, NHEERL
  • Keith Houck, NCCT Eric Weber, NERL
  • Elaine Hubal, NCCT
  • Thank You
  • After viewing the links to additional resources, please complete our online feedback form.
  • Thank You
  • Links to Additional Resources
  • Feedback Form



Share with your friends:


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2019
send message

    Main page