The Department of Defense will break ground this month on a $12.5 million Hazardous Material Response Facility (HMRF) targeting LEED Silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council.

The design/build team of architecture firm Lord, Aeck & Sargent (Atlanta office) and construction firm The Christman Company (Alexandria, Va. office) was selected from among four shortlisted teams to design and construct the HMRF. The award was a best value decision that included, among other things, the team’s proposed enhancements to the design of an existing facility program as well as its experience in designing and building laboratories and sustainable facilities.

The HMRF will be located on the Pentagon Reservation and will be home to members of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), a Department of Defense Agency charged with protecting the Pentagon Reservation and other DoD-occupied facilities in the National Capital Region.

When completed in summer 2011, the two-story HMRF will house lab, storage, training, and administrative spaces to be shared by PFPA responders.

Some of the building’s sustainable design features and products will include:

• Use of recycled content materials, including a steel frame with 95 percent recycled content

• Use of regionally sourced materials

• Sunshades for control of solar heat gain and glare

• A high-efficiency air handling unit with a heat recovery wheel and a building management system

• Bike racks and showers

• Low-flow toilets and faucets

In addition, The Christman Company will carry out construction site waste management practices.

Design speaks to safety and permanence

Sheathed in a ground face concrete masonry unit, both smooth and corrugated aluminum panels and a Low-E glass curtainwall with an anodized aluminum framing system, the HMRF’s exterior design will complement other industrial structures on the Reservation.

“The building’s architectural style can be described as ‘contemporary industrial,’” said Dan Nemec, who is Lord, Aeck & Sargent’s project designer and project architect. “Although the exterior uses industrial materials such as corrugated metal panels, they’re scaled and fastened in such a way as to soften the hardness of the material. Furthermore, the smooth machined metal panels are sleek and refined, and large areas of glass allow light to spill into the occupied areas to give the building a contemporary look appropriate to its office and administrative functions.

“Overall,” Nemec continued, “The building’s design - especially the solidness and texture toward the base - lends a feeling of safety and permanence that is appropriate to the function of the building.”

Last September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final rule on mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. The rule requires the largest emitters of greenhouse gases to collect data regarding greenhouse gases and report that data to the EPA.

Even if you aren’t an emitter that is required to collect data and report, you still can do your part to prevent greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting global warming. Here are some tips to keep in mind:

1. Replace incandescent light bulbs: Replace your regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Replacing regular light bulbs with CFLs reduces the amount of electricity you use–and also saves you money. CFLs also now come in a variety of colors (e.g., soft white, bright light, daylight) that can better accommodate your lighting needs in the workplace. Not sure about CFLs because of possible disposal issues with the mercury they contain? Watch for the new-generation light emitting diode (LED) bulbs that are starting to come onto the market. These bulbs use even less electricity, with the added benefit of no mercury disposal issues.
2. Use less heat and air conditioning. Just two degrees lower in the winter and two degrees higher in the summer can save you lots of money and prevent thousands of pounds a year of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Also, reduce your heating and air conditioning needs by using programmable thermostats, effective insulation, and well-maintained HVAC systems.
3. Reduce, reuse, and recycle: Manufacturing processes emit various types of greenhouse gases into the environment. If you can reduce the amount of manufacturing, packaging, and/or shipping you do, you’ll reduce your emissions.
4. If you drive, drive smart: If you have a fleet of company cars or trucks, make sure that the vehicles are properly maintained, which not only makes them safer but also uses less fuel. Every gallon of fuel that isn’t burned prevents about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted. Also, properly inflated tires improve fuel usage by as much as three percent.
5. Plant trees: If you have the room to put trees on your facility, plant some. One tree can absorb as much as one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime (and, if located properly, can help cool your facility during the summer). Consider native species first when selecting what trees to plant; they will be better adapted to environmental conditions in your area and require less upkeep.  If you join the Arbor Foundation (membership is only $10) you have the choice to receive 10 free trees or the foundation will plant 10 trees in a national forest for you.  Remember Earth Day is April 22.

If you’re like most people, you’re more than happy to buy green — as long as it also saves greenbacks. A recent study by the Shelton Group found that people who buy eco-friendly products at least occasionally are more interested in spending their money wisely than in improving the environment.

Myth: Never leave the lights on when you leave a room.

Reality

Mom had it right when it comes to incandescent bulbs, but she’d be wrong about today’s compact fluorescent lights. The more often you switch CFLs on and off, the shorter their operating life. In most parts of the country, it’s cheaper to leave fluorescents on if you’ll only be out of the room for 15 minutes or less, according to the Energy Department (www.energysavers.gov). In areas with high electric rates or during peak demand periods, the length of time may shorten to 5 minutes. On average, a CFL bulb costs $2.50 more than an incandescent bulb, but it will save $5.41 annually on your electric bill compared with an incandescent, according to the Energy Department.

If you haven’t converted to CFLs because you fear pollution from the mercury they contain, keep in mind that generating electricity is the main source of U.S. mercury emissions. A 60-watt light bulb will use 480 kilowatt hours of electricity and contribute almost 6 milligrams of mercury to the environment over its lifetime, according to Energy Star. A CFL will use less than a fourth of the electricity and result in a third of the mercury emissions. For more information on properly disposing of CFLs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls.

Myth: You can trust product labels that say “green,” “eco-friendly,” “earth smart” and the like.

Reality

The green-washing machine loves to crank out vague marketing terms, and the Federal Trade Commission has begun to crack down on environmental claims that fail the regulatory smell test (visit www.ftc.gov and search “Sorting Out Green Advertising Claims”). Manufacturers have begun to improve the labeling, consumer information and advice on their Web sites, including lists and definitions of ingredients. Also look for the EPA’s Design for the Environment label.

Myth: Switching to solar is a great way to achieve energy savings.

Reality

Solar systems, even with government incentives, are expensive. The owner of a typical single-family home in the United States wastes almost $350 annually on heated or cooled air that escapes to the outdoors. So for most houses in most places, the first line of defense is to reduce demand, says Bruce Harley, author of “Cut Your Energy Bills Now.” That means tightening up the house and its ductwork, improving insulation, switching to CFLs, upgrading appliances and changing your behavior. After that, if you still want to go solar, you may be able to make do with a smaller system that costs less. For example, instead of a 4-kilowatt photovoltaic system (the size recommended for the average home) — which would cost $16,800 installed after an average state-tax incentive of 25 percent and the federal discount of 30 percent — you might get by with a 2-kilowatt system, which would cost $8,400.

Myth: Energy savings (and tax credits) will eventually pay for replacement windows.

Reality

True, windows are a big energy waster, but you probably have bigger fish to fry. The average cost to replace a window with a high-efficiency model is $300 to $700, and another 50 to 100 percent if you must replace a rotten or damaged frame, according to http://www.CostHelper.com. Through 2010, you can get a tax credit for 30 percent of your cost, up to $1,500, for super-efficient windows (many that are currently Energy Star-approved don’t qualify). Many older homes don’t have huge amounts of window area, and newer houses tend to have more energy-efficient windows that meet existing standards for Energy Star labeling. If you still want to upgrade your windows, you may wait until products meeting new and more rigorous Energy Star standards reach the market in April 2010.

Myth: “Biodegradable” products that return to their natural state save landfill space.

Reality

Modern landfills are designed to keep out sunlight, air and moisture to prevent air and water pollution, thus inhibiting degradation. The FTC’s definition of a biodegradable product is one that will completely decompose within a reasonably short time under customary methods of disposal. Because most landfill garbage won’t pass that test, you’re better off reducing your contribution to solid waste (according to the EPA, the average American generates almost five pounds of garbage a day). At the store, look for a claim of “post-consumer recycled” content, then recycle what you can. Also use sites such as Freecycle.org instead of hauling reusable stuff to the dump.

Myth: You’ll recoup the higher price you pay for a hybrid car in savings at the pump.

Reality

You may not earn back the $3,000-plus premium you’ll pay for a hybrid with savings at the gas pump. Hybrids always run cleaner than gasoline-fueled engines, but they only make financial sense when gas prices are high, you drive a lot and you plan to keep the vehicle for, say, five or more years. (Use our hybrid calculator to compare the ownership costs of a hybrid versus gas-powered vehicle.) Paying the hybrid premium might be worth it as an insurance policy against higher gas prices in the future, says Bradley Berman, editor of HybridCars.com.

Myth: It’s worth paying 20 to 40 percent extra to buy organic because the food is healthier.

Reality

A recent and hotly debated British study asserts that organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally grown food. But this isn’t an all-or-nothing issue: If you want to minimize your exposure to pesticides and save money on organics, too, spring for the organic label only on the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” — fruits and vegetables that carry the most pesticide residue. They are (from most to least residue): peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, kale, lettuce, grapes (imported), carrots and pears. The clean 15 (from least to most residue) include onions, avocados, sweet corn (frozen), pineapples, mangos, asparagus, sweet peas (frozen), kiwi fruit, cabbages, eggplants, papayas, watermelons, broccoli, tomatoes and sweet potatoes.

Myth: You can reduce your carbon footprint by eating locally grown foods.

Reality

While locavores often cite “food miles” — that is, the distance food is shipped to market — as a reason to eat local, Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, professors at Carnegie Mellon University, say that transportation accounts for only 11 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food, while 83 percent is related to production. Produce grown close to home may be fresher and taste better. But food grown where conditions are most auspicious will require less fertilizer, pesticides, labor and investment in tools, says Art Carden, who teaches economics at Rhodes College in Memphis. If you really want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, cut back on consumption of red meat, which Weber and Matthews say is responsible for producing 150 percent more greenhouse gases than chicken or fish.

Myth: You can neutralize your personal share of greenhouse-gas emissions by buying carbon offsets.

Reality

Measuring your carbon emissions is a squishy science, and measuring the offsets is even squishier. For example, Carbonfund.org sets the cost to offset an airline trip cross-country (round-trip) at $8.92 for .0.89 tons of fumes. Sustainable Travel International charges $45.34 for 1.8 tons. (The price of a carbon offset can vary from $5 to $25 per ton on average. Clean Air-Cool Planet, a nonprofit devoted to climate-science education, says that it’s impossible to prove that buying offsets will “render purchasers carbon neutral.” There’s no clear standard in use for certifying offsets, although the FTC is investigating the issue. For further guidance, read “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers” Cleanair-coolplanet.org. Also check the fine print on sellers’ Web sites to see whether the criteria for selecting projects are explained and the benefits quantified.

Myth: New homes are more energy-efficient than older homes.

Reality

Homes built over the past decade or so gobble about as much energy as homes built decades ago. That’s because newer homes are bigger, more architecturally complex and full of energy-hogging electronics, says Harley, the author of Cut Your Energy Bills Now. Even a new-home owner will benefit from paying for an energy audit and following through on its recommendations. According to the Home Performance with Energy Star program http://www.energystar.gov, improving energy efficiency will produce utility-bill savings of 20 percent or more.

Just a couple of years ago the only people putting solar panels on their houses wore Birkenstocks and preferred tofu to T-bones. But now that energy bills are skyrocketing and it has become downright fashionable to reduce your carbon footprint, the idea of adding solar electricity to your home doesn’t sound all that far-fetched to the rest of us.

Green technology has also become more cost-effective, thanks to the economic stimulus package, which offers a 30% tax credit for extreme green projects completed before 2017.

That said, even with the tax credit, these projects aren’t cheap. They make the most sense if you are planning to shell out thousands to replace your aging heating and cooling system anyway and are a resident of one of the 20 states and a few cities offering additional tax incentives.

In Montgomery County, Md., for example, you can get $5,000 in local credits toward solar panels. Here’s what three of the most promising green tech projects will cost you (after the feds’ tax credit) and how long they would take to pay off, assuming your energy bills are in the medium to high range, compared with the national average of $2,200 a year.

The least expensive way to harness the power of El Sol is to heat your water with it. Antifreeze circulates through black tubes up on the roof, where the liquid absorbs heat, and then through your hot-water supply, where it releases that warmth. Since that’s not enough to get the water fully hot, the system pre-warms the water for your conventional heater, lowering your water heating costs, which are about 14% of your energy bill, by 50% to 70%.

Cost: $4,000 to $6,000

Payback time: five to nine years

These units, which can knock 40% to 70% off your total energy bills, make use of the energy stored deep in the earth. In the summer they expel indoor heat - except instead of releasing it into the air, they discharge it hundreds of feet underground. In the winter the pump works in reverse, concentrating underground warmth and using it to heat your house (you’ll need to keep your old heating system as a booster for very cold days).

Cost: $15,000 to $30,000

Payback time: three to 10 years

The problem with solar panels has always been what to do when the sun isn’t shining. With today’s systems your house stays on the electrical grid, which supplies whatever power you need at night and on cloudy days. But when the sun is out, the solar cells produce more electricity than you can use, and the excess goes out to the grid through a two-way meter. The juice you supply is usually credited against what you draw from the utility and should result in a 70% to 100% savings on your electric bills.

Cost: $20,000 to $30,000

Payback time: five to 10 years