The first manufacturing facilities owned by Energy Star partners to meet or exceed the 10 percent reduction goal within 5 years or less under the Energy Star Challenge for Industry are:

• Kodak’s Manitou site in Rochester, N.Y.:            25 percent reduction (2007-2009)
• Kodak’s GCG Columbus manufacturing site in Columbus, Ga.: 10 percent reduction (2007-2008)
• Shearer’s Foods, Inc.’s Lubbock, Texas plant: 15 percent reduction (2009-2010)
• Detroit Diesel’s Redford Component Manufacturing Center in Detroit, Mich.: 17 percent reduction (2008-2009)
• John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.’s Elgin Headquarters facility in Elgin, Ill.: 17 percent reduction (2008-2009)
• John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.’s Selma, Texas facility: 26 percent reduction (2008-2009)
• John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.’s Garysburg, N.C. facility: 23 percent reduction (2008-2009)
• FetterGroup’s Headquarters Facility in Louisville, Ky.: 23 percent reduction (2007-2009)

Learn more about the Energy Star Challenge for Industry: http://www.energystar.gov/industrychallenge

Source: May 6, 2010 EPA News Release

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

Opening Statements:

• Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV , U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

The following witnesses were invited to testify:

• Mr. David Zaslav, President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications
• Ms. Susan Naylor, Mathematics Instructional Coach, Wood County Schools
• Dr. S. James Gates Jr., John S. Toll Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, University of Maryland
• Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis, President and Director, Museum of Science, Boston, Founding Director, National Center for Technological Literacy
• Mr. Tom Luce, Chief Executive Officer, National Math and Science Initiative

More Information: Archive footage of the hearing will be posted here.

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

This event is the seventh in a series of Sustainable Manufacturing American Regional Tours (SMARTs) that enhance awareness of sustainable manufacturing’s many benefits and facilitate the exchange of best practices among U.S. firms.

Plant managers, environmental managers, and other company decision-makers from small and medium-sized manufacturers are encouraged to attend.  Space is limited with preference given to representatives from local companies.  One representative from a company may attend.

Location:

The Matworks Company
11900 Old Baltimore Pike, Beltsville, MD
April 19th, 2010, 3:00-5:00pm

Registration: Please click here or visit www.manufacturing.gov/sustainability to register for this event. There is no cost for attending.

If you have any questions about the event, please contact Bill McElnea at 202-482-2831 or via email at sustainability@trade.gov.

Source: April 12, 2010 DOC Update

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and from cabinet departments and other federal agencies. One topic it is currently addressing is advanced manufacturing. PCAST has a number of questions regarding advanced manufacturing that could best be answered with the help of public input. PCAST asks that you provide responses to any or all of the following questions by 5:00 p.m. EDT Tuesday, April 20, 2010.

Support for new manufacturing technologies

1. Are public-private partnerships (e.g., consortia), in which government jointly funds projects with industry and often academia, a good mechanism to support new manufacturing technologies that are beyond the reach of individual firms? If not, why not?

2. Some advocate the expansion of the mission of the national laboratories to include R&D challenges relevant to a broad range of manufacturing industries. Is this an appropriate strategy? If not, why not?

3. At some federal agencies, an “innovation budget” is established to promote breakthrough discoveries. Should such a budget be established for advanced manufacturing technology? If not, why not?

Support for new manufacturing firms

4. Given the success of some government-industry-university innovation clusters, should the federal government take the lead in establishing additional clusters to support new manufacturing firms, in particular? If not, why not?

5. Should the federal government assist in the formation and advancement of small firms in the advanced manufacturing sector? If not, why not?

6. Do you believe that potentially valuable research at universities is not being fully utilized by industry?  If so, why does this occur, and should federal agencies increase the emphasis on translational research to address this issue? If not, why not?

Support for existing manufacturing firms

7. Should the federal government help form public-private partnerships to perform research on “horizontal,” cross-cutting technology platforms (e.g., modeling, simulation) that are essential, but beyond the reach of individual firms? If not, why not?

8. Should the government generate an international benchmarking effort to compare US manufacturing infrastructures (i.e., technology platforms) with those of competing nations? If not, why not?

9. Should government, in partnership with industry, sponsor programs in manufacturing training and certification at community colleges, technical schools, and colleges to enhance the nation’s workforce? If not, why not?

A national manufacturing strategy

10. Should the President create a national science– and technology–based manufacturing strategy as a pillar of US economic policy? If not, why not? If so, which actions should have highest priority? Which of these are most cost-effective?

Source: April 7, 2010 PCAST Blog Post

More Information: The full post is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/07/policy-forum-future-advanced-manufacturing-united-states

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

Until now, the consolidated public portion of the TSCA Inventory has only been available by purchase from the National Technical Reports Library or other databases. By adding the consolidated TSCA Inventory to the Agency’s website and to Data.Gov, EPA is making this information readily available to the public at no cost.

Currently, there are more than 84,000 chemicals manufactured, used, or imported in the U.S. listed on the TSCA Inventory. However, EPA is unable to publicly identify nearly 17,000 of these chemicals because the chemicals have been claimed as confidential business information under TSCA by the manufacturers. EPA has already begun a series of aggressive steps to provide greater transparency on chemical risk information, including an announcement in January that signaled EPA’s intent to reduce a certain type of confidentiality claim, or Confidential Business Information (CBI) claim, on the identity of chemicals

In the coming months, EPA will take further steps to increase transparency and make more information available to the public, including adding TSCA facility information, and the list of chemicals manufactured to the Facility Registry System (FRS). FRS is an integrated database that provides the public with easier access to EPA’s environmental information and better tools for cross-media environmental analysis. The addition of TSCA facility and chemical databases to FRS will provide the public with information on the facilities in their communities using industrial chemicals.

For information about EPA’s increasing transparency on chemical risk information see http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/631cf22eb540c4db852576b2004eca47!OpenDocument

For access to the entire TSCA Inventory, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

Source: March 15, 2010 EPA News Release

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

The event will be held in Sacramento, in the Byron Sher Auditorium within the California Environmental Protection Agency headquarters at 1001 I Street, and presentations will be webcast live. Registration is requested.

Presenters:

• Alex Stone, State of Washington, Department of Ecology
• Clive Davies, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Don Versteeg, Procter & Gamble
• Lauren Heine, Clean Production Action
• Libby Sommer, U.S. EPA

Topics:

• Foundations of alternatives analysis (often called alternatives assessment)
• Overview of U.S. EPA Design for the Environment (DfE) multi-stakeholder alternatives analysis approaches
• Conducting U.S. EPA DfE alternatives analysis — furniture and printed circuit boards
• Green Screen for Safer Chemicals
• U.S. EPA DfE’s Safer Product Labeling Program
• Lessons learned: Differentiating chemicals in alternatives analysis
• Identifying the availability of safer alternatives for policy purposes
• Perspectives and practical experience in alternatives analysis

A second symposium, Alternatives Analysis Symposium II: “Case Studies from the Field,” is planned for July 28, 2010.

Source: April 2, 2010 DTSC Update

More Information:More information on the symposium will be posted at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/Alternative-Analysis-1-Symposium.cfm

Contact: Mike O’Docharty at green.chemistry@dtsc.ca.gov or (916) 324-4754

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

Source: Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)

Comments Due By: June 7, 2010

More Information: The Federal Register notice is at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-7756.htm

Contact: Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0743; fax number: 202- 566-0677; e-mail: bushman.daniel@epa.gov

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

EPA has concluded, based on a review of available studies, that these chemicals could cause cancer in people.  The purpose of the proposed addition to TRI reporting requirements is to inform the public about chemical releases in their communities and to provide the government with information for research and potential development of regulations.

Four of the chemicals are being proposed for addition to TRI under the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) category.  The PACs category includes chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) and are likely to remain in the environment for a very long time. These chemicals are not readily destroyed and may build up or accumulate in body tissue.

Source: April 6, 2010 EPA News Release

More Information:

• For a list of the 16 chemicals:  http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/ntp_chemicals/index.html
• More information on TRI: http://www.epa.gov/tri

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

137 financial institutions globally with a combined $16 trillion in assets, including Allianz Group, CalSTRS, HSBC, ING, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) and National Australia Bank, have signed the request for information, asking companies to measure and disclose information on their water usage, the risks and opportunities in their own operations and supply chains, as well as water management and improvement plans.  The questionnaire results will be made available to investors that have requested disclosure and summarised in an annual report, the first of which will be produced in the last quarter of 2010.

Companies within the Global 500 that have been asked to report this year are in water-intensive sectors such as Automotive, Construction, Electric Utilities, Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs), Food and Beverage, Mining, Oil and Gas, and Pharmaceuticals.

Source: April 7, 2010 CDP Press Release

More Information:

• The full press release is at https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/CDPNewsArticlePages/CDP-issues-first-Water-Disclosure-Questionnaire.aspx
• More information on the questionnaire is at https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/cdp-water-disclosure.aspx

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com

The first activity carried out for this Center for Global Partnership-supported project was a two-day workshop at Nanjing University that brought together a diverse group of government, NGO, industry, and research professionals from the Lake Tai watershed to participate in highly interactive discussions with international counterparts. Participants learned about some of the key drivers of Lake Tai’s complex pollution problems and discussed possible policy, market, transparency, and scientific strategies used in the United States and Japan that could prevent and/or remediate pollution in Lake Tai.

Source: April 6, 2010 CEF Web Update

More Information: Workshop summaries and powerpoints are posted here.

Prepared by: This message was distributed by Kellen Mahoney, who may be reached at e-mail: kmahoney@eetnews.com