NIST announces new nanotechnology center

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has announced a new state-of-the-art center for collaborative nanotechnology research. In making the announcement, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said, "The national Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) will help the private sector develop innovative products like more efficient batteries, lighter-weight and higher-performing materials for aircraft and autos, and smaller computer chips to power digital devices."

CNST's prime objective is to lay the technical groundwork necessary to translate nanotechnology's many anticipated offerings into practical realities — manufacturable, market-ready products. To accomplish this goal, CNST will leverage and combine the diverse knowledge and capabilities of NIST, industry, academia, and other government agencies to support all phases of nanotechnology development, from discovery to production.

The center will also house a Nanofabrication Facility, or Nanofab. This large "clean room" will be equipped with a still-growing array of state-of-the-art tools for making, testing, and characterizing prototype nanoscale devices and materials. These instruments will be available to collaborators and to outside users.

For additional information, go to www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/cnst.htm or to www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/CNST_factsheet.htm.

ASME's NSF Task Force endorses administration's fiscal 2007 budget request for NSF

The ASME National Science Foundation (NSF) Task Force recently endorsed the administration's request of $6.02 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2007. The position statement on the NSF fiscal 2007 budget request recently submitted to the House Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee "enthusiastically applauds the National Science Foundation's leadership in articulating the nation's basic research and development vision.

"Because NSF is the only federal agency that supports all fields of science and engineering research, ASME still feels that NSF is severely underfunded. A substantial and steady increase in NSF's budget, by increasing both the number and size of its awards, especially in core disciplinary research and education, will enable NSF to better position itself to fulfill its leadership responsibility in directing the nation's research and development activities."

The total fiscal '07 NSF budget request of $6.02 billion represents a $439 million or 7.9 percent increase over the current fiscal 2006 estimate, making the outlook for the NSF budget appear more positive than it has in the last few years. Despite an increase in fiscal '06, cuts in previous years actually put the fiscal 2006 appropriation below the fiscal 2004 budget. NSF benefits from the Administration's recent American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which calls for a doubling of the NSF budget over 10 years.

In this budget, funding for the Engineering Directorate (ENG) would increase by 8.2 percent over the current year estimate to $628.55 million. For fiscal 2007, ENG will also complete a comprehensive reorganization intended to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of engineering and the complex integration of the subdisciplines comprising ENG. The new disciplinary-area divisions are: Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems, $124.4 million; Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation, $152.2 million; and Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems, $80.9 million.

The new crosscutting area divisions are: Industrial Innovation and Partnerships, $120.1 million; Engineering Education and Centers, $126.0 million; and Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation, $25.0 million. This last division is being created to provide mechanisms to respond rapidly to breakthrough innovations at the interface between divisions and directorates. The other five divisions will compete with each other to receive EFRI funds.

For more information about the fiscal 2007 NSF budget and the ENG reorganization, please visit www.engineeringpolicy.org/National_Science_Foundation.cfm.

On a related note, the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), of which ASME is a member, recently sent a letter to the president thanking him for his $6.02 billion request for NSF for fiscal 2007. CNSF is an alliance of more than 100 organizations united by a concern for the future vitality of the national science, mathematics, and engineering enterprise. To view this letter in its entirety and the aforementioned ASME NSF Task Force position statement, please visit www.asme.org/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/
PositionStatements.

Melissa Murray is responsible for public policy-related NSF issues. She can be reached at murraym@asme.org.

ASME's EED releases statement on multipollutant initiative legislation

ASME's Environmental Engineering Division has released "The Technology Implications of the Multipollutant Initiative Legislation for the Electric Power Industry," a 52-page position statement that examines the technical and economic basis for legislative proposals by three U.S. Senators to regulate key air pollutants.

If enacted, one of these bills or a combination of them would establish the regulatory structure governing permissible air emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides by electrical power generators.

The three bills — the Clear Skies Act (S. 131 sponsored by Sens. Inhofe and Voinovich), the Clear Air Planning Act (S. 843 sponsored by Sen. Jeffords), and the Clean Power Act (S.150 sponsored by Sens. Carper, Gregg, and Chaffee) — were analyzed and compared in terms of the current technical capacity available; the economic requirements of meeting specified reductions; timing issues related to meeting the implementation schedule set out in the legislation; and health impacts of emission reductions.

The position statement reached the following conclusions:

• The technology exists to meet the nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide reductions required under each of the multipollutant legislative proposals. The technology exists to meet the mercury component for both the Inhofe and Carper bills, but not the Jeffords bill. The main difficulty with the Jeffords bill is the specified timeframe to meet the required mercury reduction.

• New, more efficient and economically attractive technology is under development and may or may not be available in the time frame needed.

• The full cost impacts (permitting, design, engineering, construction, operation, and maintenance) may not be fully recognized.

• The question of who will pay for the retrofitting of the facilities and for other changes has not been completely delineated.

• The full annual cost impact of the legislation to the ratepayer, total dollars ($/year) as well as unit costs ($/kWh) has not totally been developed.

• There are significant issues in meeting the timing specified in the legislation.

• The risk reduction (benefit) from the legislation needs to be more fully explained and delineated.

In addition to the analysis of the three legislative proposals mentioned above, the paper provides a thorough history of "Clean Air" legislation over the past 35 years.

To read the statement in its entirety, go to www.asme.org/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/
PositionStatements. To review the Clean Air legislative proposals cited above, go to http://thomas.loc.gov.

USPTO receives increased fiscal '07 budget in administration request

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would receive $1.8 billion under the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request, up from the $1.7 billion requested and approved in fiscal 2006.

It is anticipated that USPTO will use the money to reduce application-processing time and increase the quality of its products. This funding would allow for the hiring of additional examiners, the refining of the electronic patent application filing and processing system, the improvement of quality assurance programs, and the implementation of higher standards for examiner certification and recertification.

To review the proposed USPTO budget for fiscal 2007, go to www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/07BIB/USPTO.pdf.

For the third consecutive year, the president is recommending that the USPTO keep all of the fees it will collect. In recent years, congressional appropriators have channeled revenue from patent and trademark applications into the government's general revenues. Last November, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 2791, "Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2005," which would permanently end that practice. Legislation to accomplish the same outcome, S. 1020, is currently pending in the Senate. Both bills may be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov, and then searching by bill number.

On a lighter note, the USPTO recently awarded patent number 7 million to DuPont senior researcher John P. O'Brien for "polysaccharide fibers" and a process for their production. The fibers have cotton-like properties, are biodegradable, and are useful in textile applications. From the time the first numbered patent was issued (1836), it took 75 years to issue patent number 1 million, then 24 years to issue patent number 2 million. It has taken just over six years to go from 6 million to 7 million patents. To read more about the history of patents, go to www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/06-09.htm.

Global warming summit set for April 4

Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., have scheduled a day-long summit on April 4 to consider factors that stand in the way of establishing a mandatory, cap-and-trade program for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

As reported in the Feb. 16 edition of "Capitol Update," the two senators authored a 14-page white paper outlining the issues to be addressed in crafting a market-based greenhouse gas reduction bill. See http://energy.senate.gov/publicl/_files/
ClimateChangeWhitePaper.doc.

The four key questions posed in the white paper are:

• Where should greenhouse gas emissions be regulated?

• Should regulations focus on "up stream" sources, e.g., coal mining operations, petroleum refiners, natural gas and pipelines or on "down stream" sources, e.g., electric utilities, motor vehicles, households, and small businesses?

• How should any new U.S. program be linked to greenhouse gas trading programs already in place in Canada and the European Union?

• How will developing nations be addressed?

The committee asked for comments on the aforementioned white paper, and received more than 160 e-mails with some 500 documents from industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, religious organizations, scientists and trade groups. Republican and Democratic committee staff are reviewing these ideas and are in the process of selecting the panelists for the April 4 global warming conference.

A quick review of the responses indicates that many of them support a mandatory program, while others oppose such a program but offer constructive suggestions on how to develop one. All comments are posted on the Energy Committee Web site, http://energy.senate.gov/public.

Senate committee holds oversight hearing on Yucca Mountain project

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held an oversight hearing March 1 on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program, a project now nearly eight years behind schedule.

In his opening statement, Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., noted, "The way the process is supposed to work is for DOE to construct and operate the site, in accordance with the radiation standards that EPA sets, and the NRC is to regulate the facility. This committee has the sole jurisdiction over the EPA and the NRC, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this site moves forward in accordance with the law, and that we can start shipping waste there as soon as practicable."

The committee heard from a panel of witnesses, including representatives of the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Research Council. Predictably, representatives from these entities maintained that the Yucca Mountain project is on-track despite the various legal, financial, and legislative delays. Go to http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=251961 for a listing of witnesses as well as their complete written statements.

Nevada's senators just as predictably weighed in to oppose the project. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., had this to say: "I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump will never be built because of the myriad scientific, safety, and technical problems in which it is mired. It simply is neither safe nor secure, as illustrated by several significant scientific, legal, and budgetary setbacks this past year and a half."

His colleague, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., observed, "Yucca Mountain continues to be plagued with problems and delays. The Department of Energy no longer even pretends to know when Yucca could open or how much it will cost. We need to find another solution to our nuclear waste problem."

Sens. Reid and Ensign have authored legislation mandating that nuclear waste be stored on-site where it is produced and requiring the federal government to take responsibility for possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of the waste. That bill (http://reid.senate.gov/pdfs/Take_Title_2005.pdf) would eliminate the need for a single repository, ensuring that nuclear waste could be safely stored on-site and under control of the federal government. The legislation would also increase safety at all nuclear power plants by providing funding for additional security to guard against accidents or terrorist attack. For additional information, go to http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=249893.

Science Committee holds hearing on possible new DOE

The House Science Committee held a hearing to determine whether to support a proposal by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to create a new, high-risk research arm of the Department of Energy (DOE).

The proposed Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) would be modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). It would not conduct research, but rather issue grants to conduct research to scientists in academia and the private sector.

NAS proposed ARPA-E in its report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," calling for an initial budget of $300 million that would increase to $1 billion annually by the fifth or sixth year of operation. ARPA-E is also a component of the competitiveness proposals introduced by Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. The president's American Competitiveness Initiative does not call for the creation of ARPA-E.

Witnesses at the hearing addressed the four premises on which the creation of ARPA-E is based:

• The problem with the energy market is that the supply of new technologies is insufficient;

• The supply is constrained because of a lack of fundamental research;

• A sensible way to promote more fundamental research is to apply the DARPA model to the civilian energy sector; and,

• Implementing the DARPA model is the best way to improve energy research given the tight federal budget.

Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., calling himself an "open-minded skeptic" toward the ARPA-E proposal, described those premises as "at the very least, open to debate." By contrast, most of the witnesses were supportive of the proposal as long as funding for ARPA-E was not diverted from DOE's existing basic research programs.

"We all agree that energy research and development is key to energy independence, innovation, workforce development, and U.S. security," stated Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn. "The question is how far are we willing to go to enact real change that garners tangible results? Establishing an ARPA-E is a bold step, but it just may be the tool that gets the job done." Read his entire statement at http://sciencedems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?
NewsID=1062.

For a list of the witnesses, go to www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-202.htm. For a summary of the hearing, go to www.house.gov/science/press/109/109-203.htm or to http://sciencedems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?
NewsID=1062.

— Josh Craft
ASME Government Relations

 

back to columns