Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.

Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED provides building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.

LEED addresses both commercial and residential building types. It works throughout the building lifecycle – design and construction, operations and maintenance, tenant fitout, and significant retrofit. And LEED for Neighborhood Development extends the benefits of LEED beyond the building footprint into the neighborhood it serves.

Since its inception in 1998, U.S. Green Building council(citation LEED for existing buildings v2.0 reference guide page pg 11) has grown to encompass more than 14,000 projects in the United States and 30 countries covering 1.062 billion square feet (99 km²) of development area. The hallmark of LEED is that it is an open and transparent process where the technical criteria proposed by USGBC members are publicly reviewed for approval by the almost 20,000 member organizations that currently constitute the USGBC.

The Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) was established by USGBC to provide a series of exams to allow individuals to become accredited for their knowledge of the LEED rating system. This is recognized through either the LEED Accredited Professional(LEED AP) or LEED Green Associate (LEED GA) designation. GBCI also provides third-party certification for projects pursuing LEED.

The development of LEED began in 1993 and was spearheaded by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior scientist Robert Watson who, as Founding Chairman of the LEED Steering Committee (until 2006) led a broad-based consensus process that included non-profit organizations, government agencies, architects, engineers developers, builders, product manufacturers and other industry leaders. Early LEED committee members also included USGBC co-founder Mike Italiano, architects Bill Reed and Sandy Mendler, builder Gerard Heiber, builder Myron Kibbe and engineer Richard Bourne; engineers Tom Paladino and Lynn Barker co-chaired the LEED technical committee in 1996.

In 1998 the LEED 1.0 pilot program was released; during the pilot period extensive revisions were made and by March 2000 LEED 2.0 was released to the marketplace.

LEED has grown from one standard for new construction to a comprehensive system of six standards covering all aspects of the development and construction process. LEED also has grown from six volunteers on one committee to more than 200 volunteers on nearly 20 committees and over 200 professional staff in Washington, DC. LEED was created to accomplish the following:

• Define “green building” by establishing a common standard of measurement
• Promote integrated, whole-building design practices
• Recognize environmental leadership in the building industry
• Stimulate green competition
• Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits
• Transform the building market

Green Building Council members, representing every sector of the building industry, developed and continue to refine LEED. The rating systems address eight major areas:

• Location and Planning
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and Atmosphere
• Materials and Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality
• Innovation and Design Process
• Regional Priority

The Rating System

LEED has evolved since its original inception in 1998 to more accurately represent and incorporate emerging green building technologies. LEED NCv1.0 was a pilot version. These projects helped inform the USGBC of the requirements for such a rating system, and this knowledge was incorporated into LEED NCv2.0. LEED NCv2.2 was released in 2005. Today, LEED consists of a suite of nine rating systems for the design, construction and operation of buildings, homes and neighborhoods. Five overarching categories correspond to the specialties available under the LEED Accredited Professional program. That suite currently consists of:

Green Building Design & Construction

• LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations
• LEED for Core & Shell Development
• LEED for Schools
• LEED for Retail New Construction (planned 2010)

Green Interior Design & Construction

• LEED for Commercial Interiors
• LEED for Retail Interiors (planned 2010)

Green Building Operations & Maintenance

• LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance

Green Neighborhood Development

• LEED for Neighborhood Development

Green Home Design and Construction

• LEED for Homes

In 2003, the Canada Green Building Council received permission to create its own version of LEED based upon LEED-NC 2.0, now called LEED Canada-NC v1.0.

LEED also forms the basis for other sustainability rating systems such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Labs21.

After four years of development, aligning credits across all LEED rating systems and weighting credits based on environmental priority, USGBC launched LEED v3, which consists of a new continuous development process, a new version of LEED Online, a revised third-party certification program and a new suite of rating systems known as LEED 2009. In response to concerns that LEED’s requirements are cumbersome and difficult to learn, in 2009 USGBC supported the development by BuildingGreen, LLC of LEEDuser, a third-party resource that contains tips and guidance, written by professionals in the field, on applying LEED credits and the LEED certification process.

In LEED 2009 there are 100 possible base points plus an additional 6 points for Innovation in Design and 4 points for Regional Priority. Buildings can qualify for four levels of certification:

• Certified - 40 - 49 points
• Silver - 50 - 59 points
• Gold - 60 - 79 points
• Platinum - 80 points and above

On April 6, 2010, EPA took an important step toward providing communities with additional information about toxic chemicals being released to the environment. The Agency announced that it is proposing to add 16 chemicals to the TRI list of reportable chemicals. The Agency’s proposal is part of its ongoing efforts to examine the scope of TRI chemical coverage and provide communities with more complete information on toxic chemical releases, and is the first TRI program chemical expansion in over a decade.

The chemicals that EPA is proposing to add have been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in their Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. Based on a review of the NTP RoC data, EPA believes that these 16 chemicals meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B)statutory listing criteria because they can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. Additionally, four of the chemicals are being proposed for addition to the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) category. The PACs category is a category of special concern, because PACs are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals, and as such, they are likely to remain in the environment for a very long time, are not readily destroyed, and may build up or accumulate in body

1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone

2,2-bis(Bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol

Furan

Glycido

Isoprene

Methyleugenol

o-Nitroanisole

Nitromethane

Phenolphthalein

Tetrafluoroethylene

Tetranitromethane

Vinyl Fluoride

Additions to the Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (PACs) category:

1,6-Dinitropyrene1,

8-Dinitropyrene,

6-Nitrochrysene,

4-Nitropyrene

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.

EPA Announces Next Steps on Two Hazardous Waste Rules

EPA is announcing next steps on two hazardous waste rules to respond to concerns raised by stakeholders: the Definition of Solid Waste rule and the Emission Comparable Fuels rule. 

EPA is planning to hold a public meeting to discuss possible revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rule in response to an administrative petition asking the agency to reconsider and repeal the rule. The rule became effective on December 29, 2008. The meeting is planned for the end of June, and a Federal Register notice with the details of the meeting will be published in May. 

The DSW rule modified the regulations for recycling hazardous secondary materials to encourage the recycling of certain materials to help conserve resources. The rule includes conditions designed to ensure that the recycling of the materials is protective of human health and the environment. The rule also takes into account a series of opinions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the meaning of the term “discard,” which forms the basis of the definition of solid waste.

Since publication of the DSW rule, the Sierra Club has raised concerns about the effectiveness and protectiveness of the rule and has requested EPA stay the rule in an administrative petition. In addition, the Sierra Club and the American Petroleum Institute have filed judicial petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Various industry groups have also filed letters opposing the Sierra Club’s administrative petition. 

EPA expects that stakeholders’ input at the public meeting will assist the agency in deciding whether to make revisions to the rule and how such revisions would further ensure that the rule appropriately and safely encourages resource conservation for those hazardous secondary materials that are conditionally excluded. The Federal Register notice announcing the meeting will raise specific questions for consideration, particularly related to reclamation that is not under the control of the generator. Any revisions to the rule would be made through the full public rulemaking process. 

EPA is also planning to propose a rule to withdraw the Emission Comparable Fuels (ECF) rule, which became effective on January 20, 2009. The proposal will present the agency’s concerns and request comments from the public after publication in the Federal Register, planned for November 2009. After evaluating the public comments, the EPA will make a decision on whether to repeal the exclusion.

The ECF rule removed regulatory costs by reclassifying certain manufacturing byproducts as non-wastes. ECF is fuel that is produced from a hazardous waste, but which generates emissions when burned in an industrial boiler that are comparable to emissions from burning fuel oil. The materials must also be stored under an elaborate set of requirements. The final rule has been criticized for allowing hazardous waste to evade the hazardous waste regulatory system, and also for being difficult to administer. Industry members have also criticized it because of the detailed and prescriptive conditions for reclassification, which they believe will limit the rule’s use. 

More information on the Definition of Solid Waste rule: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/rulemaking.htm

More information on the Emission Comparable Fuels rule: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/combust/compfuels/exclusion.htm

Green Energy Center Gets Project of the Year Recognition from U.S. EPA
EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program Recognizes Ohio Landfill Gas to CNG Fueling Operation
NEWPORT BEACH, CA – January 13, 2009
FirmGreen, Inc. (FGI) was recognized today at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) annual conference with a Project of the Year Award for its Green Energy Center (GEC). The high Btu landfill gas utilization project, located near Columbus, Ohio is a public-private partnership with the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (SWACO).

“Forward thinking and dedication are key ingredients to successful alternative energy projects like the Green Energy Center,” said Rachel Goldstein, EPA LMOP Program Manager. “It is a win for the environment and the local community.”
FGI used its patented CO2 Wash® landfill gas (LFG) clean-up technology to convert raw LFG that would otherwise be flared into pipeline quality natural gas for a potential array of clean, renewable energy sources. The CO2 Wash unit processes 300scfm of raw LFG into ultra-pure medium Btu methane that powers a 250kW micro turbine to generate electricity for the facility.  The high Btu methane is used as a fuel for SWACO vehicles.  The clean-up technology was invented in Ohio by Acrion Technologies, Inc.
“FirmGreen is much honored to have been selected as EPA’s Project of the Year,” stated Steve Wilburn, founder and CEO of FirmGreen, Inc. “We have worked closely with the Landfill Methane Outreach Program staff for several years and congratulate them on their dedication and support.  The Program is really one of the true success stories within our federal government.”

“By utilizing waste gases generated from SWACO’s landfill, we produce domestic, renewable transportation fuels, improve the environment and generate economic growth.  We are proud of our ongoing partnership with SWACO as we work to clean our air, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, provide clean and affordable vehicle fuels, and spur job creation.”

“Forward thinking and dedication are key ingredients to successful alternative energy projects like the Green Energy Center,” said Rachel Goldstein, EPA LMOP Program Manager. “It is a win for the environment and the local community.”

The GEC demonstrates the technical and economic feasibility of utilizing CO2 Wash as the technology platform for a smaller scale high Btu landfill gas project. The project accomplished its goals with a facilities design that:

•is self-sustaining; the facility generates enough electricity for its own operations.
•demonstrates that smaller landfill operations have a viable LFG utilization option at a competitive cost
•enables landfill and waste water operations to respond effectively to national environmental policy with a single project.

Can you picture what it means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 million metric tons? News stories are packed with measurements of greenhouse gas reductions, but understanding them can be difficult — until now. EPA’s new Greenhouse Gas Calculator helps turn greenhouse gas savings into more easily understood terms.
The calculator converts greenhouse gas-related savings estimates, typically presented in “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents,” into familiar terms such as the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from:

• Driving a particular number of cars for a year,
• Using a particular amount of gasoline or barrels of oil,
• Using a particular number of tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline,
• Providing energy to a particular number of homes for a year,
• Growing trees across a particular number of acres for a year,
• Recycling a particular quantity of waste instead of sending it to the landfill, or
• Generating electricity from a particular number of coal-fired power plants for a year.

Users can enter savings in emissions, electricity consumption, gallons of gasoline, or number of vehicles into the calculator and determine up to 13 different ways to express the magnitude of the savings. The calculator uses the latest emission factors, approaches and statistics available through 2007.
As an example, if a typical household switched all its incandescent light bulbs to Energy Star-qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs, it would save about 75 percent of the lighting electricity use, or about 1,463 kilowatt hours a year. After five years, these energy savings are equivalent to:

• Saving about 10,289 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions,
• Conserving 530 gallons of gasoline,
• Saving 11 barrels of oil,
• Planting 120 tree seedlings, or
• Recycling 1.6 tons of waste.

Are you familiar with the EPA law The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (40 CFR Parts 350-372)?  The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act believes you should know the following:

• What chemicals are located near you.

• Evacuation routes for your home, workplace and children’s schools.

• Shelter-in-place procedures.

• Industry and community warning systems.

• How to prepare a family and/or a business plan.

The act requires facilities that have hazardous materials to report their inventories to the State Emergency Response Commission, their Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and local fire department. The 11 LEPCs also train first responders and give emergency authorities the technical assistance to safely handle hazardous-material incidents.

Have you ever wondered about what’s inside that box you watch all the time?  Over 40 millions people have at least 1 TV which contain some or all of the hazardous materials listed below.  Many poeple are buying the new LCD or Plasma screen TVs. Hence, the old TV sets are being dicarded into landfills.  The Balitmore Sun recently reported how this could lead to seroius environmental problems. Environmental groups are very concerned about these hazardous materials going into the landfills and our soils.

TV sets and computer monitors are safe when they’re viewed under normal conditions in homes and offices. But when owners discard them, toxic materials inside can leak into the environment if the sets are not properly recycled. Here’s what’s inside:

Lead: Sets with cathode ray tubes (CRTs) contain 4 to 8 pounds. Used in screens and soldered circuit boards. Can cause brain damage, blood disorders, kidney damage and birth defects. Children are particularly vulnerable.

Mercury: Used in lamps of flat-screen liquid crystal displays (LCDs). High levels can contribute to brain and kidney damage, birth defects.

Cadmium: Used in phosphor coating of CRT screens. A carcinogen that accumulates in the body and can cause kidney damage.

Barium: Used inside CRTs. Short-term exposure can cause neurological problems and damage to heart, liver and spleen.

BFRs: Brominated flame retardants are used in wiring. Can disrupt hormones and immune system, especially in children.

PVC: Polyvinyl chloride insulates wires. Can emit toxic fumes when burned in incinerators and can leach out in landfills.

Electronics TakeBack Coalition, Consumer Electronics Association and the EPA are concerned about how this new waste stream will affect the amount of waste and the landfills in the upcoming years. 

What can we do?  Recycle your TV and/or computers properly.  Check with your recycling centers or the EPA to find the best way to keep these hazardous materials out of the landfills.  Be RESPONSIBLE!

by Jennifer Collins

Many workplace hazards are more easily identified than others. Those who test parachutes for instance, can make a clear connection between workplace hazards and life threatening situations. Some people put their lives at risk each day in military and public safety positions to feed their families or serve their country. There are however, entire classes of workers who have been put in danger without even knowing it. Some of these hard working men and women have been victim to the silent killer known as asbestos.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring element that is present in a number of asbestos containing materials, or those that contain at least 1% asbestos, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos was first used by early civilizations for a number of factors. They realized that pottery was more heat-resistant when the hair-like asbestos fibers were mixed with the clay. They also used it in their clothing and blankets, noticing an increased durability and warmth to garments woven with asbestos fibers. Up until approximately 1980, asbestos was used in the United States for any number of home and industrial purposes. It is present in pipe insulation and electrical fixture coverings because it is fire retardant and prevents heat transfer. It is mixed with several construction compounds such as floor tiles, roofing shingles, and artificial home siding materials.

Contrary to popular belief, asbestos when left alone, poses little threat to human inhalation though those asbestos containing materials should be replaced as a rule. However it is when it is damaged by heat, weather, or other force which renders it “friable,” when it is most dangerous. When the asbestos fibers become loosened or otherwise disturbed by any number of factors they become airborne and inhaled.

Occupational hazards are the most common origin of asbestos related health complications. Duties which engage asbestos materials are those who are the most likely to disturb the particles and inhale them. This can happen in a myriad of occupational situations but is most common in shipyards, construction sites, and some areas of manufacturing. In shipyards for instance, it is not likely that those work on the ships will be affected but more likely that those who were involved in the construction or repairs of ships. These are professions in which repairs of older fixtures, which contain asbestos, could mean chipping away the insulation and rendering it friable. When these types of repairs or duties are done day after day for many years, the likelihood of developing asbestos related disease is increased.

Asbestos related diseases, such as the lung cancer http://www.mesothelioma.com/ are incredibly painful and debilitating ailments, in which in the absence of a cure the body will eventually asphyxiate itself. Often the symptoms of asbestos related respiratory complications will not appear for several years, even decades after an exposure. This can lead many to be unaware of the causal relationship between a prior occupational exposure and the reality that they now have to deal with. It is a darker chapter of American industry, in which workers were not protected from a known human carcinogen. It is important that if you have been exposed to asbestos, or think you may have been exposed while working in one of the above or related industries that you seek the assistance of a physician. There are medical, emotional, and legal support structures already in place to assist victims of occupational asbestos exposure. Early detection of the disease is the primary variable which can increase treatment and quality of life management options.

However, it is being aware that can help us all. Be knowledgeable about what materials your working with, and what could be potentially harmful. If asbestos is involved, leave it alone or request the proper training from your employer which teaches professionals how to remove and dispose of asbestos products. Knowledge of these materials is the primary line of protection, and knowing is half the battle.
Jennifer Collins
jcollins@mesothelioma.com

Jennifer Collins grew up in Aberdeen, Maryland in the city that is known as the “Gateway to the Chesapeake Bay.” She attended Aberdeen High School and graduated in June of 2001. From there she studied Communications and English at Colby College in rural Maine. Upon graduation in 2005, Jennifer gained her M.A. in communications design at the Newhouse School of Communications at Syracuse University.

She first discovered an interest in asbestos-based health complications while working with a prominent health resource website in a research position. Jennifer worked in several freelance capacities before joining the web design team at Mesothelioma.com in February of 2007. Today she resides in Syracuse, NY and enjoys weekends in the nearby mountains with friends and the small town charm nightlife of upstate New York’s Salt City.
 

The Compliance Resource Center would like to thank Jennifer Collin for contributing her article to our site.  If you would like to write an article for this site, please contact us at allan@thecrcenter.com 

Proposed revisions that will change the requirements for facilities subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule are expected within weeks. According to EPA, the revisions will tailor and streamline requirements to particular industry sectors and facilities subject to the rule.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson recently signed a proposed rule to amend the rule at 40 CFR part 112.

All SPCC-regulated facilities would be potentially affected by the proposed amendments, through which EPA intends to provide:

Clarity on the general secondary containment requirements,
Flexibility in the security requirements,
Flexibility in the use of industry standards to comply with integrity testing requirements,
Additional flexibility in meeting the facility diagram requirements, and
Clarification on the flexibility provided by the definition of “facility.”
Some of the other proposed changes include exemptions and a definition of loading/unloading rack.

Plan template allowed for small facilities
The changes would also streamline requirements and allow the use of an SPCC Plan template for a subset of qualified facilities known as “Tier 1” qualified facilities (i.e., with no individual oil storage container with a capacity greater than 5,000 U.S. gallons up to an aggregate of 10,000 gallons).

Until then, comply with old rule
Nothing in this proposed rule removes any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before Aug. 16, 2002, to develop, implement, and maintain an SPCC plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations then in effect. These facilities are required to maintain their plans until the applicable date for revising and implementing plans under the new amendments.

Public comments on the proposed changes will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register, which is expected within two weeks. Information about the SPCC rule proposed amendments is available at www.epa.gov/oilspill/spcc_oct07.htm