Masonry Magazine February 2011 Page. 53
MCAA Certification Calendar
The following is the MCAA's education calendar for certification:
February 17, 2011
Structural Engineering
Basics for Masonry
Professionals
(NCMCA Mod 4)
Greensboro, NC
Discipline: Masonry Products
Credits: 6
February 23, 2011
Assuring the Successful
Continuation of Your
Business
Online
Discipline: Ethics & Business
Practices
Credits: 1.25
March 2, 2011
An Introduction to LEED and
Masonry Construction
Online
Discipline: General
Credits: 1
March 9, 2011
Quality Assurance for
Masonry
Online
Discipline: Codes & Standards
Credits: 2
March 10, 2011
Blueprint Reading and
Estimating Basics (NCMCA
Mod 6)
Greensboro, NC
Discipline: General
Credits: 4
March 15, 2011
Ergonomics - Definition,
Costs, and Enforcement
Online
Discipline: Safety
Credits: 1
March 23, 2011
Stone Fabrication for
Restoration and New
Construction
Online
Discipline: Masonry Products
Credits: 1
March 30, 2011
Military Construction
Online
Discipline: General
Credits: 1
April 6, 2011
Indiana Limestone Problems
and Solutions
Online
Discipline: Masonry Products
Credits: 1
April 13, 2011
Water Resistant Masonry
Online
Discipline: Masonry Products
Credits: 1
April 20, 2011
Understanding Masonry
Codes & Standards
Online
Discipline: Codes & Standards
Credits: 4
April 27, 2011
Restoration Masonry
Online
Discipline: General
Credits: 1.5
Online classes available at www.masoncontractors.org.
We now offer Masonry Live Education Webinars on
Wednesdays at 9 a.m. CST.
For more information or to register for any of these programs, please go to
http://certification.masoncontractors.org/education/index.php
costs for the entire industry at no more than $1.7 billion.
EPA's cost-benefit analysis also neglects to account for many of the quantifiable benefits that would result from stricter standards, and puts an enormous dollar value on the so-called stigma" that would supposedly attach to coal ash recycling by virtue of regulating disposal sites. These economic assumptions are haphazard, unsupported by the record, and designed to slant the playing field against regulations that are based on protecting the public's health.
Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer said, "Unfortunately, EPA and OMB just got this wrong. The regulatory impact analysis prepared by EPA to support its proposal exaggerates the economic life cycle value of coal ash recycling, which could end up stacking the deck in favor of the weaker regulatory option favored by industry. Somehow, the agency has let itself be distracted by bogus economic arguments, instead of determining how best to protect the public from leaking ash dumps. In any case, coal ash recycling would not stop under the stronger of the two rules at the EPA. Coal combustion waste can be recycled responsibly, help reduce disposal costs and, in some cases, reduce energy or raw materials cost when coal ash is used as a substitute. All evidence suggests that strict regulation of coal ash disposal sites will encourage recycling, as industries seek to avoid the higher disposal costs."
Frank Ackerman, senior economist, Stockholm Environment Institute, said, "We found numerous errors, large and small, in EPA's cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rules. Once we corrected those errors, the strict regulatory option is the clear winner. The only argument for the weaker option is industry's unsubstantiated claim that strict regulation of ash disposal would cause immense, long-lasting harm to the market for ash recycling. In reality, strict regulation of disposal would make recycling more attractive, not less."
Abigail Dillen, staff attorney, Earthjustice, said, "It should come as no surprise that requiring safe landfills for coal ash is less costly than allowing ash dumps to contaminate water in hun-
www.masonrymagazine.com