Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Safety Updates

On January 16, 2024, in the case of Warren v. U.S. DOL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia involving a challenge to the DOL’s Independent Contractor Rule, four freelance writers/editors sued the Department of Labor claiming the Independent Contractor Rule amounts to a concerted effort to force them into employment relationships they neither want nor need. On July 24, 2024, the court received submissions of cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. Before that, several amicus (friend of the court) briefs were filed. The court has not yet issued a decision on the cross-motions to dismiss.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on January 31, 2014, in Fisher v. Airgas that an employee out on cancer leave who used a hemp-based product called “Free M” for relief of treatment pain took a random drug test and tested positive and was terminated. The employee sued and won, and the company appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The company relied on the “honest belief” doctrine. This doctrine shields companies from liability for allegedly discriminatory employment actions if they offer legitimate reasons based on incorrect information that they reasonably trusted at the time they made the decision. The Court of Appeals ruled against the company and stated that the company could not rely on the “honest belief” doctrine without adequately investigating that the employee’s use of the hemp could have caused a false-positive test result.

In another challenge to the Independent Contractor Rule, on February 8, 2024, Frisard’s Transportation, LLC v. U.S. DOL in the Eastern District of Louisiana suit was filed by the Liberty Justice Center and the Pelican Inst. Co. for Public Policy on behalf of the company. The company employs 30 independent owner-operator drivers in the State of Louisiana. The current status of this case as of July 3, 2024, in order to stay and administratively close the case was issued by the court. However, the plaintiffs notified the court of their intent to appeal the court’s previous order denying their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As of August 26, 2024, the current status of the Independent Contractor Rule is that amicus curiae briefs are being filed in the appellate case.

The Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act (PWFA) was issued as a final regulation on April 15, 2024, by the EOCC. Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations under this act include additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use a restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of particular job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or miscarriage. There is currently a lawsuit brought by 19 states against the regulation. Also, 23 other states have filed a brief in defense of the regulation. Oral argument took place on June 3, 2024, and on June 21, 2024, and an order was issued denying a motion for an injunction pending appeal. The PWFA remains in force while appeals concerning challenges are litigated.

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court heard Muldrow v. City of St. Louis about a plainclothes police officer who was transferred to a lesser position that has the same pay rate, but different hours and duties sued claiming sex discrimination. A lower court tossed out the case saying that the plaintiff did not suffer any significant harm to build or bring the suit. The Supreme Court disagreed stating that a worker does not have to show that the harm incurred by sex discrimination was significant or serious.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on April 29, 2024, regarding an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations request. In the case of Yanick v. the Kroger Co., a bakery worker returned to her position after breast cancer leave with her doctor’s OK to return to full duty. However, she struggled with certain tasks and was demoted. She filed an ADA lawsuit and the court sided with her saying the employer should have inferred that her comments about her physical struggles amounted to a request for an ADA accommodation. The takeaway from this decision is that as with the the Family and Medical Leave Act, employees do not need to say any magic words to request an ADA accommodation. You should ensure your managers know what may qualify and elevate subtle requests by an employee to the level of accommodations.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court in a decision titled Loper Brite Enterprises v. Raimond held that judges cannot defer to a government agencies interpretation of the law. Instead, judges must exercise “independent judgment” and give statutes their “best meaning.” Judges can still consider agency guidance when that guidance is persuasive, long-standing, and consistent. But they cannot treat that guidance as “binding.” They must interpret statutes for themselves. This decision could make it harder for agencies to make rules. For example, instead of defending their rules as “reasonable” interpretations of a statute, they will now have to defend the rules as the “best” interpretations of the statute, and in court, they will be on equal footing with parties trying to challenge the rules. This decision overturned the Chevron rule.

In an interesting decision on July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Corner Post, Inc. v. the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the statute of limitations for challenging the rule under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) begins to run only when the challenger has been injured by the rule. The previous statute limitations that was applied stated that the 6-year statute of limitations began when the act became a final rule. The ruling means that a challenger can sue to block a rule that has been on the books for many years.

On August 30, 2024, the Biden–Harris administration published a proposed rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from extreme heat. As indicated in the standard, the heat injury and illness prevention standard will require employers to develop an injury and illness prevention plan (HIIPP) to control heat hazards in workplaces affected by excessive heat. The plan would require employers to evaluate heat risks and the risk to workers and implement requirements for drinking water, rest breaks, and controlling indoor heat. As for outdoor workers, a heat illness prevention plan will have to be developed for each work site.

On September 4, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule banning noncompetes went into effect. Challenges have been made against the new standard, however, in only one case was an injunction granted and that injunction was limited to the parties to the lawsuit. That injunction was granted in the Northern District of Texas. In a similar case filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court denied the request for an injunction. So while legal challenges are pending, the noncompete ban is in full force and effect.

Finally, OSHA recently issued its top 10 most strictly cited workplace safety standards for FY 2024. They are as follows:
1. General Requirements for Fall Protection (1926.501)
2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)
3. Ladders (1926.1053)
4. Respiratory Protection (1910.134)
5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147)
6. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178)
7. Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503) (specifically 1926.503 (a) and (b)
8. Scaffolding (1926.451)
9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment – I and Face Protection (1926.102)
10. Machine Guarding (1910.212)

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Data Mining—A Great Tool to Identify Key Safety Focus Areas

It is widely accepted that the most effective way to identify opportunities to reduce employee exposure to safety risks is by performing proactive risk assessments and other audit and assessment activities. It is always better to identify, reduce, and eliminate risks and hazards before an injury occurs. Having said that, we should not discard what has happened in the past. Often, a review of historical injury and incident data reveals trends that will continue to impact the safety of our workers if sustainable controls are not implemented. Known as “data mining,” this approach is used by many experienced safety professionals to identify key safety focus areas.

An important step for the analysis of injury/incident data is determining what inputs should be captured. These can vary greatly, depending on the work performed and the types of risks present in the workplace. At Johns Manville, the incident management database used to capture this data may seem a bit overwhelming for a new safety professional because many inputs are required to be entered. However, this multitude of input data allows for injury/incident trends to be analyzed in countless ways.

Examples of Data and Trend Analyses

The following figures provide examples of data trend analyses and the conclusions that were drawn from them.

Figure 1 shows that in this organization, the fingers and hands were the most frequent body parts injured. This data led the organization to create a special emphasis program aimed at reducing the number of hand and finger injuries. (The total number of injuries has been removed for confidentiality reasons).

Figure 2 shows a multitude of different injury types. At first sight, it is possible to conclude that no clear pattern stands out. However, a closer look shows that two of the top four injury types are directly related to ergonomic stressors (discomfort and sprain/strain). As a result, the organization moved to perform more ergonomic risk assessments to identify ergonomic improvement opportunities. (Again, the total number of injuries has been removed for confidentiality reasons).

Data analysis also showed that newer employees (less than 1 year of tenure) suffered injuries at a far higher rate than injuries that occurred in the total workforce. This disproportionality led the organization to improve and standardize the employee onboarding process. The data also helped guide how the organization selects trainers from within the tenured group to provide on-the-job training to the newer employees.

Conclusion

Because risk assessments, hazard analyses, and other hazard identification tools are proactive and are performed before an injury or incident occurs, they are the preferred methodology for injury prevention. However, data mining (the review of historical injury and incident data) may reveal injury trends that can also help us to identify key safety focus areas.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Understanding Passive Fire Protection and the Growth Impacts to the Insulation Industry

One of the least understood technical concepts, yet potentially the most impactful opportunity for organic growth of the mechanical insulation industry, is passive fire protection (PFP). Engineers and asset owners can realize significant benefits in terms of safety, reliability, environmental compliance, operational efficiency, and compounding savings on energy inputs and insurance expenses. Manufacturers, distributors, fabricators and contractors can benefit from installing insulation and metal jacketing within industrial plants on assets that may have never been insulated.

The first concept to understand is the difference between the two primary types of PFP: structural versus pressure-relieving systems. Historically, these two design methodologies have often been conflated in marketing and technical bulletins, causing confusion among stakeholders.

Structural PFP is designed to protect structural steel skeletons that support pipe racks, vessels, and equipment above ground level (see Figure 1). Typically specified materials used for structural PFP are cementitious or intumescent epoxy coatings, spray-applied to steel elements such as I-beams, columns, and girders. Endothermic wraps or fire- protection boards are less common and more costly, but they are removable for corrosion under fireproofing (CUF) inspection. Structural steel loses about half of its load-bearing capacity at 1,100°F. Therefore, structural engineers must specify the number of minutes (typically 120 to 240 minutes) the steel skeletons can withstand a fire event so firefighters can evacuate well before a catastrophic collapse of the structure.

There are two test methods regarding fire protection for structural steel: UL 1709 – Rapid Rise Fire Tests of Protection Materials for Structural Steel and ASTM E1529 – Standard Test Methods for Determining Effects of Large Hydrocarbon Pool Fires on Structural Members and Assemblies. Simply stated, these tests answer the question: How many minutes will it take to increase the temperature of a specific steel member protected with a specific thickness of PFP material from ambient to 1,000°F inside a 2,000°F furnace? Thicker/heavier steel requires thinner PFP material and thinner/lighter steel requires thicker PFP material to achieve the same number of minutes of fire protection.

The second application for PFP—pressure-relieving system applications—is much less
understood, and it is the focus of the balance of this article. It is incumbent on the industry to understand and be clear when discussing this topic with engineers and facility operators by not conflating unrelated structural steel PFP test methods such as UL 1709 with pressure-relieving system applications. With few exceptions, mechanical insulation and metal jacketing is not historically specified for structural steel PFP, in favor of the more labor-friendly and cost-effective solutions mentioned above. In short, we should focus efforts on pressure-relieving applications to create organic and long-term sustainable demand for more mechanical insulation, metal jacketing, and skilled labor to install them.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is an industry association of more than 600 member companies. According to www.api.org, “API represents all segments of America’s oil and gas industry,” and “API’s mission is to promote safety across the industry globally…” API publishes numerous consensus standards documents to assist engineers and plant operators to increase safety and promote best practices to decrease risk. One such document is titled “API Standard 521 Pressure-Relieving and Depressuring Systems.” This copyrighted document must be purchased from API or one of its authorized distributors.

API 521 is the governing document when discussing PFP that involve pressure-relieving systems. First, one needs to understand the concept in simple terms. If a fire breaks out in an industrial plant, there are many highly volatile and explosive fluids (liquids or gases) that will get hot very quickly. What happens when fluids heat up? They expand, which increases pressure inside the pipe or storage vessel. This excess pressure needs to be released, and the fluids quickly conveyed away from the fire, using specialized and costly pressure-relieving valves (PRVs) to avoid an explosion and further propagation of the fire (see Figure 2).

In industrial plants, traditional methodology assumes that during a fire outbreak, an emergency pressure-relieving event is inevitable due to the rapid heating and vaporization of stored volatile fluids. This time-tested system ensures the rapidly heated stored fluids are quickly released by PRVs into liquid knockdown drums and flashback seal drums, with the excess gases quickly burned off by a flare stack (see Figure 3).

A good analogy to this concept is a pressure cooker like those that can be found in many kitchens. These mini sealed pressure vessels quickly cook foods like beans, potatoes, and beef stew by combining heat and above-atmospheric pressure. The key to this kitchen gadget is a small PRV on the lid that sputters and emits steam with a pleasant, rhythmic hissing sound I remember fondly from my childhood. A PRV is also installed on home water heaters to release excess pressure, which prevents your water heater tank from becoming a missile and blowing a hole in your roof!

One of the lesser known and understood sections of the API 521 standard document is section 4.4.13.2.7 External Insulation. It states (bold emphasis added):

Credit for thermal insulation is typically not taken because it usually does not meet the fire-protection insulation requirements given in 4.4.13.2.7.2 through 4.4.13.2.7.4. If these requirements are met, a reduction in fire input can be obtained by using the environmental factor.

While it is true that most industrial insulation systems do NOT meet the requirements, it is also clear that systems CAN be designed with the correct components to withstand the extreme fire-protection conditions listed in the report.

Succinctly stated, a properly designed and professionally installed insulation system can be utilized to dramatically limit the rapid heat gain in a system during a fire. In a real sense, one can buy time to “slow the pot from boiling” in the first place. As Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Section 4.4.13.2.7.2 clearly outlines the requirements of the insulation SYSTEM for it to qualify as “fire-protection” for the purposes of reducing the potential of a rapid expansion of stored fluids during a fire outbreak. The system includes insulation, attachment method, metal cladding, and any accessories to help the system remain attached and intact, to protect the vessel from rapid heat gain during a fire. This method may allow for a reduction in the cost and footprint of the pressure-relieving and flaring system.

Section 4.4.13.2.7.2 states that the physical property requirements of the insulation system are as follows:

  • The system must be able to function effectively at temperatures up to 1,660°F for up to 2 hours.
  • Corrosion under insulation must be considered when installing any insulation.
  • The system must remain intact and not be dislodged by high-pressure water streams during firefighting operations.
  • The insulation system must be able to withstand direct flame impingement.
  • The insulation system must be attached with stainless steel bands and then clad with stainless steel jacketing.
  • Aluminum banding and/or jacketing is NOT acceptable because it will melt at 1,220°F.

According to several metal jacketing suppliers, about 90% of mechanical insulations installed in industrial plants are clad with aluminum jacketing due to the lower cost compared to stainless steel jacketing (25 to 30% Δ). This fact explains the statement in API 521, “Credit for thermal insulation is typically not taken because it usually does not meet the fire-protection insulation requirements.” By specifying T-304 stainless steel bands, wing seals, and cladding with a melting point greater than 2,500°F, this ensures the insulation system can withstand the extreme temperatures and hold the insulation on the asset (see Figure 4.) Stainless steel expansion or compression springs installed on the outer bands of large vessels keep the bands tight during operations and can help the insulation remain attached during a fire event.

Table 6 of API 521, reproduced here in Figure 6, lists five different types of generic insulations (Figure 5). Please note that Table 6 should not be considered an “approved list” or all-inclusive of every type of generic insulation material that could be specified by an engineer in conjunction with stainless steel jacketing for this application. At the same time,
certain other types of insulations that cannot withstand extremely high temperatures should not be considered for this application. In this author’s experience, the most common error in the engineering community in specifying “fire protection insulation” per API 521 is confusing maximum continuous operating temperature versus a 2-hour excursion temperature of 1,660°F during a fire event, as listed in the API requirements. If one misunderstands this key difference, then the only insulation that would apparently suffice would be type II calcium silicate with a continuous operating temperature of 1,700°F. API’s Table 6 lists several other generic types of insulation with maximum continuous operating temperatures between 900°F and 1,200°F that will all survive a 2-hour excursion event when attached/clad with stainless steel bands/jacketing. Several other generic types of insulation not listed in Table 6 could also be specified as a component in a fire-protection insulation system per API 521. Hybrid systems using more than one type of generic insulation also could be considered. Engineers should contact manufacturers of materials not listed in Table 6 for specific performance and recommendations for this specialized application.

For the purposes of this overview, which focuses on benefits to the insulation industry and its end users, we will not discuss in detail the process for determining the thickness required to slow the rapid heat gain during a fire or to potentially reduce the cost and footprint of pressure-relieving systems. At a high level, engineers must calculate the anticipated heat gain at much higher mean temperatures that often exceed the required maximum mean temperatures to be reported per the various ASTM material standards (typically 700°F mean or lower). One specific takeaway to consider is for insulation manufacturers promoting their materials for API 521 applications to invest in testing and publishing measured thermal conductivity values at higher mean temperatures—perhaps up to 1,100°F mean, as an example.

Here is a concrete illustration of how utilizing a properly designed fire-protection insulation system per API 521 can provide immediate and long-lasting return on investment (ROI) for an industrial plant operator. The average age of an oil refinery in the United States is 74 years old. As safety standards have increased over time, insurance carriers have also increased their fire-protection requirements for owners. One such refinery in the western United States was faced with a costly expansion of their pressure-relieving system as a condition of their insurance carrier continuing coverage. The refinery had a large pressure vessel with one 2”-thick layer of type I calcium silicate insulation, which was clad with aluminum jacketing. By employing the design methodology in API 521, plant engineers were able to plan and execute a project that removed the aluminum jacketing and added one more layer of 2”-thick insulation that was then clad with new stainless steel jacketing. Using this smart strategy, the owner was able to meet the insurance company’s new requirements without upgrading to larger PRVs along with an expanded flare disposal system. The owner reported the cost difference between the two options was over a million dollars and improved the thermal efficiency of the pressure vessel!

Conclusion

Mechanical insulation is well known for its myriad benefits, including process control, worker protection, and reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions—all while providing extremely short payback periods and compounding ROI. Fire-protection insulation systems per API 521 provide one more valuable benefit for owners to consider as part of their overall risk management strategy.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Designing District Energy Systems for Longevity

District energy systems are becoming more commonplace as a practical HVAC solution for populated environments with a high demand for heating and cooling solutions. Today’s universities, hospitals, and municipal complexes commonly rely on a district energy system’s central plant to generate chilled water, hot water, and steam, and distribute them via a network of pipes to energy users in the buildings throughout the district.

District energy system piping is usually “direct buried” under soil or housed in underground tunnels and vaults. These environments often can present harsh conditions that can lead to problems within pipe insulation systems, including reduced thermal performance, corrosion under insulation (CUI), and added stress to underlying equipment and infrastructure. These issues could be due to suboptimal material selection, improper installation, or damage that takes place during operation.

In this article, we will explore factors to consider regarding insulation systems to support the longevity and efficiency of district energy systems.

Challenges with Chilled Water Lines

The chilled water lines within district energy systems typically will operate within a given temperature range. This could be as low as 36°F (2°C) for chilled water supply lines and up to 55°F (13°C) for return lines. Given these below-ambient temperatures, there is usually an ever-present vapor drive that wants to condense water vapor from the air into liquid water condensation on the pipe’s surface. Insulation systems rely on the integrity of a vapor barrier to prevent water buildup from occurring within them. If that vapor barrier were to become compromised, the system would be subject to moisture intrusion that could bring about a variety of issues that could remain hidden for years before being discovered.

Moisture ingress into the insulating system is a key concern in chilled water applications. In the case of absorbent insulations, liquid moisture can collect within the insulation material. Insulation systems often rely on the presence of air gaps within their structure to maintain their declared thermal conductivity values. If these insulation materials become saturated with water, it leads to significant degradation of their thermal properties, resulting in thermal bridging, which can increase heat gain into the underlying chilled water lines. This situation can lead to energy losses and increased costs, as more energy is required to cool pipes back down to their intended operating temperature. It also puts added stress on equipment such as chillers, potentially degrading their service life.

Another byproduct of introducing moisture into an insulation system involves the potential for CUI. For corrosion of carbon steel to occur, certain ingredients must be present—the most fundamental of which are the presence of oxygen and an electrolyte (such as liquid water). Oxygen is almost always readily available, whether it be from the air or dissolved in water itself. Therefore, if liquid water is introduced onto a carbon steel surface, the risk of corrosion becomes immediately present. Corrosion can damage the outside of pipes over the span of multiple years; and, in the most catastrophic instances, it can result in failure of an entire piping system.

In addition to preventing moisture from penetrating into insulation, it is also important to maintain a surface temperature of insulation that will prevent surface condensation, or
“sweating,” from occurring. If water is allowed to condense on the outside of an insulation system, it can contact nearby metal equipment and lead to corrosion, or potentially work its way through a system’s vapor barrier, leading to the previously mentioned issues. The goal when designing an insulation system for chilled water lines is always to ensure that the surface temperature of the insulation system will be greater than the dew point of the surrounding air. One way to achieve this is to ensure a sufficient thickness of insulation material is used, based on the operating temperature and humidity of the local environment. This can be determined during the engineering design phase of a system through an energy analysis calculation.

Another design consideration that can affect the presence of surface condensation is the emissivity of an insulation system’s outermost surface. Emissivity is the relative effectiveness of a surface to emit and absorb heat by radiation. It is expressed as a ratio between 0 and 1 and is most relevant to the outermost jacketing to be used on an insulation system. The higher the emissivity, the more heat transfer will occur between the material and its environment via radiation. When considering chilled water pipes in warm environments, low emissivity jacketing materials—such as aluminum and steel—will absorb less heat from their surroundings via radiation, which will result in a lower jacketing surface temperature. Conversely, high emissivity jacketing materials—such as PVC and ASJ—will absorb more heat from their surroundings, yielding an overall higher surface temperature for the same system and potentially preventing surface condensation from taking place.

These complications around moisture intrusion can vary in significance based on the geographic location of a project. In cooler and more arid regions, there may be less humidity present within the air to contribute toward a vapor drive into an insulation system. However, in warmer and more tropical environments, vapor drive tends to be a much more significant issue that requires forethought and design consideration. As a best practice, it is advised to consider the worst-case conditions for a given environment when conducting energy calculations to mitigate the risk that moisture intrusion may present for a below-ambient system.

Challenges with Hot Water and Steam Lines

Pipes that carry hot processes such as steam and hot water are not subject to vapor drives in the same way that chilled water lines are, but they have equally significant risks that can lead to system complications if not designed around. As we will discuss in later sections, there are other scenarios that can lead to unexpected moisture ingress into an insulation system. If liquid water were to penetrate a hot-water or low-pressure steam line, it could present an even greater risk for CUI to occur than with pipes operating at chilled water temperatures. This is because electrochemical processes, like the formation of rust, occur more rapidly at higher temperatures. This means that if moisture penetrates an insulation system and contacts the surface of a steel pipe, and the pipe is operating at a low enough temperature for water to remain in liquid form (as with hot-water and low-temperature steam lines), then corrosion can emerge as a significant threat to the longevity of the piping itself.

In the case of high-pressure steam lines, piping is often operating at a temperature that is too hot for water to remain in liquid form to come into contact with it. In some regards, this alleviates the potential for corrosion to occur, as liquid water is a key ingredient for corrosion to take place. However, if a large amount of moisture were to penetrate such a system while not in operation, it could lead to other, more immediate issues. In this case, if insulation were to become saturated with water when the system is out of service, and the system is then quickly brought up to operating temperatures over 400°F (204°C), the heat generated could rapidly convert the water in the insulation to high-pressure steam, potentially destroying the insulation system as the steam is violently driven away from the hot pipe. This places increased emphasis on the performance of the moisture or vapor barrier to mitigate the risk of moisture penetration into a system.

One more consideration for high-temperature lines is the potential expansion that a stretch of piping will experience while in operation. Steel, like most other materials, will expand in size as it increases in temperature. For a hypothetical 100-foot run of carbon steel pipe on a steam line that increases from 70°F (21°C) to 400°F (204°C), the run of piping may experience an increase in length of about 2.6 inches. Underground expansion loops, or zees, are often installed in piping systems as locations intentionally designed to bend and allow this expansion to occur without putting stress on or damaging the piping itself. It is important that whatever insulation system is installed, it is designed in a manner to allow for this movement to occur at these critical locations, otherwise they become prime locations for damage to the vapor/moisture barrier to occur.

Challenges with Vaults and Tunnels

The piping networks that make up district energy systems typically travel from energy supplier to building users through an underground network. In many cases, this is via underground enclosed spaces, such as vaults and tunnels, which present additional challenges to insulation systems on pipes within them.

Depending on the size of an underground tunnel, it could be periodically accessible to maintenance activities that expose the insulation system to unanticipated foot traffic. It also is not uncommon for vermin to find their way into these tunnels and burrow into any materials they can. These points, while easy to overlook, place an importance on insulation materials to be durable enough to withstand such possible sources of damage.

Another unplanned-for event that often impacts tunnels and vaults is flooding. While tunnels are not typically designed to allow groundwater into them, the reality is that over the life of an underground system it becomes increasingly common for flooding to occur within these underground spaces at some point. This presents a much more direct source of water intrusion, which can lead to exacerbated complications along the same lines as the ones discussed around vapor drive for chilled water lines, or moisture ingress for hot-water and steam lines.

Challenges with Direct Burial Lines

Alternatively to vaults and tunnels, it is common for district energy piping systems to be buried directly within ground soil. This can bring about separate environmental challenges to be considered.

One example involves the compressive forces associated with soil loads and live loads. Soil load refers to the weight exerted on a pipe from the above-soil backfill when a pipe is buried. It increases with soil density and burial depth. Live load refers to the weight transferred indirectly to piping from heavy or moving objects that may be present on the surface of the ground itself. Soil load will increase with the relative mass and movement of objects in question, as well as be greater for pipes of larger outer diameter or shallower burial depth. For piping systems traversing underneath roadways, this becomes a critical design element, as the added weight and movement from vehicles presents a significant source of forces that should not be overlooked. It is important to consider both the soil and live loads that a direct burial system may be subject to and choose an insulation material with the compressive strength needed to resist them.

Another factor to consider for direct burial lines is the hydrostatic pressure the system may experience from groundwater. Hydrostatic pressure refers to the pressure that is exerted at a given point within a fluid due to the force of gravity. This challenge is most significant in locations of high water tables and heavy seasonal precipitation. If moisture is present in the soil, the water pressure will increase as a function of soil depth. If a permeable insulation is present and contains weak or poorly installed joints in its moisture/vapor barrier, this water pressure has the potential to drive moisture into underground insulation systems, where it can lead to future complications.

Considerations around Insulation Systems

It should be clear by now that district energy piping systems face multiple challenges that can affect their long-term performance. The insulation systems on these pipes should be designed with these challenges in mind to achieve the best and longest lasting performance possible. An important first step in designing a successful insulation system can take place during material selection. If a pipe will be subject to significant soil loading or foot traffic, consider choosing an insulation material that has the compressive strength to withstand the weight load it will be subject to.

Insulation materials with a zero or near-zero permeability rating can provide added protection against vapor drive that may be present in an ambient environment. Likewise, nonabsorbent insulation materials can resist retaining and becoming saturated from sources of water present. In either case, the total performance of the vapor/moisture barrier of a system is an integral part of the system’s longevity, so it is important to ensure appropriate and compatible accessory materials are used for the system in question.

Of course, even the best-designed insulation system will only perform as well as it is installed. This is why it is critical to ensure best practices for application of materials are being followed in the field through the utilization of available training courses and a robust inspection program.

Through proper engineering design, sound insulation material selection, and optimal installation techniques, district energy insulation systems can be relied upon to deliver reliable and efficient energy to our modern world.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

3E Estimator: A New Tool to Help Engineers Cut Building Emissions

A new online tool that can help building engineers dramatically lower building carbon emissions is now available. The 3E Estimator®, which leverages the capabilities of North American Insulation Manufacturers Association’s (NAIMA’s) popular 3E Plus® pipe insulation thickness calculator for commercial and industrial facilities, can provide users with a ballpark estimate of the energy cost savings, payback periods, and CO2 emission savings that can be achieved by insulating piping in their facility.

Energy Savings and Sustainability

Reducing building energy use and lowering operating costs are vital goals for building engineers. Additionally, cutting carbon emissions is a priority for building owners, managers, and federal officials. That is why the free 3E Estimator tool is a great option for facility engineers. It is also easy to use for less technical stakeholders in their efforts to assess whether a pipe insulation project is right for their facility.

Leveraging the calculation abilities of 3E Plus and the operating assumptions from ICF’s Insulation Opportunity Study (available at www.insulation.org/carbon), which details data on the potential energy savings that can be achieved from insulating all types of buildings, the 3E Estimator displays potential energy cost and emission savings in a simplified way to make evaluating pipe insulation projects much easier.

8 More Insulation Calculators

By Julie McLaughlin, National Insulation Association

Designing an insulation system can be difficult, due to the lack of educational materials and available tools. NIA and NAIMA are both combating this, and they are great resources when questions arise. NIA’s Design Guide is a step-by-step guide to educate anyone on how to build an insulation system. It also offers eight online insulation industry calculators.

  • Condensation Control Calculator for Horizontal Pipe
  • Energy Calculator for Equipment (Vertical Flat Surfaces)
  • Energy Calculator for Horizontal Piping
  • Mechanical Insulation Financial Calculator
  • Estimated Time to Freezing for Water in an Insulated Pipe Calculator
  • Temperature Drop Calculator for Air Ducts
    • Temperature Drop Calculator for Hydronic Piping
    • Personnel Protection Calculator for Horizontal Piping

Visit www.insulation.org/designguide to use these tools.

Simple and Free to Use

By entering a few simple inputs, such as the type of facility, square footage of the building, its location, and fuel type used, the 3E Estimator gives users projected cost savings, expected payback period, and emission reductions capacity to help internal decision makers move forward with insulation projects that can have a significant impact. The tool is accessible on desktop and mobile devices, and it can be easily shared via a customized link. It also allows users to create a report to share with other stakeholders. To access NAIMA’s 3E Estimator, visit www.3eplus.org/estimator.

3E Plus Calculator

The 3E Estimator was created from NAIMA’s popular 3E Plus calculator tool, which is used by more than 13,000 companies. 3E Plus has always been free, and it does not require registration.

Calculating appropriate insulation thickness is critical to the success or failure of an insulation system, but it has been tricky to do. 3E Plus software ensures accuracy, with customizable inputs for every aspect of your job. The insulation selections are based on k-values from ASTM material standards. The software also provides data from every major insulation manufacturer, so you can easily use the k-values of the specific material you are considering. Personnel protection and condensation control can also be calculated.

3E Plus benefits and capabilities include:

  • Energy – You can calculate energy reduction and cost savings from insulating mechanical systems.
  • Economics – You can calculate the most cost-effective thickness for any application.
  • Environment – You can quantify the operational emission reductions from insulating mechanical systems to reach your decarbonization goals.
  • Reliable, repeatable results – Built on ASTM Standard C680, just like previous versions of 3E Plus, the tool delivers clear, unbiased results.
  • Material standards – The tool includes ASTM material standard k–values for all insulation types.
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Label Program for Low Embodied Carbon Construction Materials

The EPA is implementing a new label program to help federal purchasers and other buyers find and buy cleaner, more climate-friendly construction materials and products. The label program is made possible by a $100 million investment from the Biden-Harris Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and aims to cut climate pollution linked to the production of construction products and materials, which accounts for more than 15% of annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Inflation Reduction Act invests billions of dollars to reduce industrial emissions while supporting good jobs, greater equity, and a strong manufacturing base, including $350 million to support EPA’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions from construction materials.

Label Program Approach

On August 7, 2024, the EPA issued its Label Program Approach for Identifying Low Embodied Carbon Construction Materials. The label program will define what constitutes “clean” construction materials in support of the Biden-Harris Administration’s landmark Buy Clean Initiative, which leverages the Federal Government’s power as the world’s largest purchaser to catalyze demand for clean construction materials used in federal buildings, highways, and infrastructure projects. Materials and products that earn the label will be listed in a central, publicly accessible registry, making it easier to identify—and therefore purchase—these materials.
The label program will prioritize steel, glass, asphalt, and concrete, as there are significant opportunities to reduce carbon emissions from these materials and they represent the vast majority of construction materials and products purchased with federal funds.
The EPA will implement the program using a phased approach that all material categories will be able to follow, at a cadence that aligns with the material’s market maturity and data availability. The phases are:
  • Phase I: Data Quality Improvement. Standardizing and improving the quality of data underlying and provided by Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
  • Phase II: Threshold Setting. Using robust EPDs, data, and other credible and representative industry benchmarks to determine thresholds for specific material categories and types.
  • Phase III: Labeling Materials and Products. Labeling materials and products that meet EPA’s criteria.

What Is Embodied Carbon?

Embodied carbon, also known as embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, refers to the amount of GHG emissions associated with upstream—extraction, production, transport, and manufacturing—stages of a product’s life. Many initiatives to track, disclose, and reduce embodied carbon emissions also consider emissions associated with the use of a product and its disposal.

WHAT TO KNOW:

CO2 emissions are not going to become greener, but insulation materials are low embodied carbon products AND also prevent CO2 from being release into the environment at all.

Why Does it Matter?

The U.S. industrial sector is linked to nearly a third of annual U.S. GHG emissions, and the manufacturing of construction materials and products accounts for 15% of annual global GHG emissions. EPA is joined by 12 other federal agencies on the Buy Clean Task Force, who together account for 90% of all federally financed and purchased construction materials. Agencies are working to identify actions to reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts comprehensively, including optimizing salvage, reuse, and low embodied carbon materials. Increasingly, states, local governments, and large public- and private-sector institutions have also adopted Buy Clean initiatives and policies to reduce embodied carbon emissions from the construction materials in their supply chains. Buy Clean policies and programs related to construction materials generally require disclosures of the environmental—and especially the embodied carbon—impacts of these products. These impacts are typically disclosed through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Insulation materials have low embodied carbon. Many NIA members offer EPDs for their insulation materials.

The label program will offer a tiered rating system for construction materials and products. Thresholds will be informed by a public input process before being finalized; and they will be periodically reviewed and updated to encourage continuous improvement and help users meet sustainability objectives. The top-threshold tier will be designed to help recognize and reward innovative efforts to achieve deep reductions in embodied carbon associated with these construction materials and products.
To earn the label, manufacturers will submit an EPD for their materials to demonstrate that they meet the eligibility criteria. The label program will determine which recognition level a construction material is eligible for, based on information provided in the EPD. The EPA’s label program will use a conformity assessment and verification approach for EPDs aligned with the existing EPD verification system and consistent with standards and best practices within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 17000 series, as well as those required by EPA’s Framework for Assessing Environmental Performance for Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing.
The EPA published the Draft Label Program Approach in the Federal Register and accepted stakeholder input on this proposed approach through a 30-day public comment period. The draft program approach was also informed by public input received in response to a 2023 Request for Information (RFI) and input from other federal agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration in the Department of Transportation and the General Services Administration.

Potential Inclusion of Additional Materials

The EPA will consider the inclusion of other materials in the label program as time and resources allow, and if materials sectors take the actions necessary to move through the phases of the label program, including:
  • Developing and/or updating the relevant product category rule to meet EPA Product Category Rule Criteria, and
  • Generating a sufficient number of EPDs to ensure there is representative data upon which to create thresholds.
More information about how additional materials may be included in the program is provided on the EPA website (see “Implementation Approach for the U.S. EPA Label Program for Low Embodied Carbon Construction Materials” in the Resources section).

Tips for Companies Seeking to Participate in EPA’s Label Program

1. Develop EPDs for the materials and products your company manufactures. 
EPDs will be used to evaluate materials and products for inclusion in the label program.
In the near future, EPA and its grantees will provide no-cost technical assistance to help manufacturers develop EPDs. If you would like to receive additional information on how to receive this free assistance, please sign up to be added to the mailing list on the EPA’s website.

2. Reduce the embodied carbon in the materials and products your company manufactures. Through producing an EPD, manufacturers will be able to identify opportunities to reduce embodied carbon. Manufacturers who do not yet have an EPD developed can identify embodied carbon reduction options by reviewing the life-cycle assessment used in the product category rule for their material or product.

Some common ways to reduce the embodied carbon of construction materials and products, while maintaining performance standards, include the following.
  •  Manage energy and invest in energy-efficient upgrades: EPA’s ENERGY STAR Industrial Program offers manufacturers technical support to help them reduce the embodied carbon of their materials and products.Join ENERGY STAR’s Industrial Assistance Network to receive training, tools, and individual coaching. Email EnergyNetwork@energystar.gov to learn more.

    Reduce your energy intensity and participate in the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry to receive EPA recognition.

    Use the ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Indicators (for available sectors) to understand the energy efficiency of your plants. Plants that earn 75 (out of 100) or higher are eligible for ENERGY STAR plant certification.

    Use ENERGY STAR resources to find ways to reduce energy and carbon by conducting an Energy Treasure Hunt.

  • Power your facilities, when possible, with electricity from renewable sources. Consult EPA’s Green Power Partnership to learn how to reduce emissions associated with conventional electricity use while supporting the domestic development of clean energy resources.
  • Improve the efficiency of your freight transportation: Participate in EPA’s SmartWay program to better benchmark, report, and reduce Scope 1 and Scope 3 freight emissions.
  • Shift to lower impact input materials or material mixes, including shifting toward circular manufacturing processes such as incorporating what would have been waste materials into new products.
  • Invest in lower carbon fuels.
Visit EPA’s Technical Assistance, Tools, Resources, and Funding Opportunities webpage for more help on certification under EPA’s label program.
Resources
• Buy Clean Initiative: www.sustainability.gov/buyclean
• EPA’s Framework for Assessing Environmental Performance for Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels for Federal Purchasing: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/updated-framework_020222.pdf
• ENERGY STAR Resources
• Learn about the ENERGY STAR Industrial Program: www.energystar.gov/industry
• Join ENERGY STAR’s Industrial Assistance Network (www.energystar.gov/industrial_plants/industrial_assistance_network) by emailing EnergyNetwork@energystar.gov
• Participate in the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry to receive EPA recognition:
• Use the ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Indicators to understand the energy efficiency
of your plants: www.energystar.gov/epis
• Earn ENERGY STAR plant certification: https://www.energystar.gov/industrial_plants/
earn-recognition/plant-certification
• Use ENERGY STAR resources to find ways to reduce energy and carbon by conducting an Energy Treasure Hunt: https://www.energystar.gov/industrial_plants/treasure_hunt
• Implementation Approach for the U.S. EPA Label Program for Low Embodied Carbon Construction Materials: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-08/lpa_final_8-6-24.pdf
• RFI and Webinar Announcement for Sustainable Marketplace/Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0924/document
• Green Power Partnership: www.epa.gov/greenpower/green-power-partnership-resources
• To be added to the EPA’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) mailing list: https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/forms/contact-us-about-greener-products-and-services
• Learn more about technical assistance tools and resources for developing EPDs: https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/tools-resources-and-funding-opportunities
• EPA’s SmartWay Partnership: www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway
• For more help on certification under EPA’s label program: www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/tools-resources-and-funding-opportunities
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The Carbon Credit Life Cycle

Carbon credits and carbon offsets have a crucial role in reaching net zero emissions goals. While all carbon credits are not created equal, they all start in the same place and go through a similar life cycle. Whether you are directly reducing footprint or are supporting projects that cut emissions somewhere else, offsets let you do both.

In this article, we will explain what happens during the entire carbon credit life cycle,1 from point of creation to retirement. We will explore where carbon offsets come from, and take a look at key players or parties involved.

Understanding the full carbon offset life cycle will help you navigate the fast-changing carbon market.

Tracing the Life-Cycle Stages of a Carbon Credit

A carbon credit is also referred to as a carbon offset in the voluntary carbon market. Individuals or firms can use the credits to voluntarily offset their carbon emissions.

Each credit represents a ton of carbon reduced or prevented from entering the air.

As such, offsets act as a means to help tackle climate crises while allowing different entities to use them, regardless of location.

The life of a carbon offset2 goes through four general stages:

  1. Development,
  2. Validation/Verification,
  3. Registration and issuance, and
  4. Retirement.

We will trace the life cycle of a carbon offset credit,3 while identifying the parties involved in each stage.

1. The Conception of a Carbon Offset: Project Developers

Carbon emission reductions4 happen all the time, but not every reduction qualifies as an offset.

Before a carbon reduction becomes a carbon offset, it has to meet a set of quality criteria based on methodologies specific to a certain kind of carbon project.

The term “methodologies” may sound complicated, but it refers to the detailed procedures that developers use to quantify a project’s emissions reduction potential.

They are also known as protocols, the blueprint for how various project metrics are calculated.

Each carbon project is unique, be it a renewable energy or agricultural project, so developers have to take several variables into account when developing them. They begin the process by designing the project and formalizing it in a Project Design Document (PDD).

Using a specific methodology,5 they then outline the project activities in the PDD. Some of the approved methodologies and protocols include:

  • American Carbon Registry (ACR) methodologies,
  • Climate Action Reserve (CAR) protocols,
  • Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodologies, and
  • Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodologies.

Understanding Credits versus Offsets

While the terms “carbon credits” and “carbon offsets” are often used interchangeably, they refer to two distinct products that serve two different purposes.

Carbon offset: A removal of GHGs from the atmosphere. Carbon offsets are produced by independent companies that pull CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. The offsets are then sold to companies that emit (or have emitted) CO2. In a sense, offset-producing companies are directly funded by those companies that emit GHGs.

Carbon credit: A reduction in GHGs released into the atmosphere. Carbon credits, on the other hand, are generally “created” by the government. Governments limit the amount of GHGs organizations can emit by placing a cap on them— a specific number of tons of CO2 the company can emit. Each of those tons are referred to as a carbon credit.

Next, project developers establish a baseline of emissions reduction, which is for assessment by a third-party body. This is the second stage of the carbon credit life cycle explained in the next section.

Once the reduction impact of a project has been assessed (via a certain methodology), the developer now holds the carbon rights to that project.

Of course, the work of a project developer, whether it is an individual or an organization, does not end there. They have to register the project with an approved registry like the Verra. This body tracks offset projects and issues their corresponding credits (more on this in the third stage of the life-cycle process).

Project developers also need to conduct regular monitoring and reporting of project activities on the ground.

Monitoring involves keeping track of the updates or progress of the project metrics, while reporting involves preparing the necessary documents about the project.

Right now, there are 170+ types of projects that produce carbon credit offsets, according to Ecosystem Marketplace.6 But they fall under eight major categories, as shown in the Figure 1.

2. The Birth of a Carbon Offset (Validation/Verification)

The second stage in the life of a carbon credit offset is undergoing a validation and verification process. Under this step are two responsible parties.

The Job of 3rd-Party Auditors

The first one is an independent, third-party auditor, also called the validation/verification body (VVB). This body comprises subject matter experts who can validate a project’s emission reduction claims, both projected and actual achievements.

Essentially, the VVB validates the following elements of a carbon offset project7 from the developer’s document:

  • Baseline scenarios,
  • Monitoring process, and
  • Methodologies for calculating emission reductions.

For example, professional foresters, agriculturalists, or community development experts often audit/validate forest carbon projects.8 The carbon program standard (e.g., Verra VCS) must accept these auditors to process the registration.

Auditors ensure the integrity and accuracy of the data and information published by the developer on the project. Some of the widely known carbon project auditors are QAS, EPIC Sustainability, First Environment, and SCS Global.

Upon successful completion of the validation, the auditor will issue a validation report and validation statement. These documents confirm that the project has been designed and implemented in accordance with the carbon certification standard.

The Verification Process

Verification is key when it comes to ensuring that project data reported is true, transparent, and has integrity. In other words, it is verifying that the project is actually doing what it says it is doing.

Verifiers9 have to confirm that a proposed project meets a carbon program’s eligibility criteria. They can then verify by confirming that project monitoring data was collected in accordance with a program’s requirements.

They also verify that the calculations of the project’s emission reductions10 were done based on the approved methodology/protocol.

The verification process often involves a site visit while monitoring data to confirm that they are accurate.

After the project has been validated and verified, it is ready for registration.

But wait, there is another key party to consider to ensure the quality of the carbon credit11—the carbon ratings agency.

The Role of Third-Party Rating Agencies

Carbon rating agencies rate or score the likelihood that the carbon offsets issued via the project have indeed reduced a certain amount of carbon or its equivalent.

Different rating agencies use various frameworks or criteria in providing their scores. Some rate using an alphabetic scale (e.g., BeZero): AAA, AA, A. Others give their ratings by using the scale of A (highest rate) to D (lowest rate), as Sylvera does.

Projects must meet specific criteria to be eligible for a rating by an agency. While the criteria may vary, in general, projects must satisfy at least three things: carbon score, additionality, and permanence.

Rating agencies also require that the project has been audited as part of their scoring framework. Plus, there should be enough information on the project design and monitoring process available to base the ratings on.

Sylvera uses a carbon credit rating system it developed internally, rating afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) projects according to its own proprietary frameworks, which are specific to project types. Additional information on how Sylvera rates ARR projects is available on the agency’s website (https://www.sylvera.com/blog/arr-carbon-ratings), and a white paper with details on the frameworks is available at https://www.sylvera.com/resources/carbon-ratings-frameworks-whitepaper.

Once it is officially (and proudly) born, the carbon credit offset can move on with its life.

3. Carbon Offset in Action (Registration and Issuance)

This stage in the carbon credit life cycle involves the carbon registries.

Carbon Registries

Registering a carbon offset project in an approved registry is easy if the previous steps are taken into consideration.

Projects are certified and issued carbon credits called by various names, depending on which registry they are registered in. For instance, under the Verra VCS program,12 the credits are called Verified Carbon Units, or VCUs. The Gold Standard offset program calls carbon credits Verified Emission Reduction, or VER, while Climate Action Reserve refers to them as Climate Reserve Tonnes, or CRT.

Regardless of their names, registries characterize carbon credit offsets through a number of quality assurance metrics. They are confirmed via the validation/verification tasks explained in the prior step.

Each offset represents a reduction or removal of 1 ton of CO2 equivalent achieved by the project.

The procedures to follow to get a project registered, certified, and issued with credit offsets depend on the specific registry chosen by the developer. The same goes for the rules or requirements provided.

Once the offset credits are issued to a project, they can now be in action. That means developers can look for their buyers in the carbon market.

4. Carbon Offset Retirement

Carbon offsets are bought by two parties: speculative investors and end buyers.

End buyers can be individuals, corporations, and governments. Buying carbon offsets can happen out of compliance to laws (for information on the compliance/regulatory

carbon market, see https://carboncredits.com/a-guide-to-compliance-carbon-credit-markets/), or it can be a voluntary decision to tackle emissions (see https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market/).

Heavy industrial emitters are the major buyers of carbon offsets as part of their compliance requirements, but plenty of large firms are also buying because of their climate commitments (see https://carboncredits.com/vcmi-code-for-ranking-companies-using-carbon-credits/).

If you prefer to buy offsets directly from project developers, you can do so; but buyers can also get offsets from brokers, traders, and exchanges. They can then use those offsets
to address their current emission reduction measures.

But there is another way to make money out of trading carbon credits. It is via speculative marketplace/exchanges and carbon ETFs.13

Speculative investors buy offsets through futures contracts, with the intention to sell them later at a higher price, hopefully.

Top carbon exchanges include the CME Group, Xpansiv CBL, Climate Impact X, ICE, AirCarbon, and Carbon Trade Exchange.

No matter how or where the carbon offsets are bought, once they are used and reported as emission reduction, they should be retired.

Retirement of offsets also means their death. They should not be around anymore and are not for resale. They must serve their emission reduction purpose only once to avoid double counting. That also means removing them from the marketplace and labeling them as retired in any records.

A retired carbon credit offset can now say goodbye to its not-so-popular yet critical world of reducing emissions.

For More Information

If you are interested to know more about carbon offsets, see www.carboncredits.com/what-is-a-carbon-offset. Or, if you want to learn how to make money with them, read a comprehensive guide at www.carboncredits.com/how-to-make-money-producing-and-selling-carbon-offsets.

References
1. https://carboncredits.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-understanding-carbon-credits/
2. https://carboncredits.com/what-is-a-carbon-offset/
3. https://carboncredits.com/carbon-credits-vs-carbon-offsets-whats-the-difference/
4. https://carboncredits.com/canadas-2030-emissions-reduction-plan/
5. https://carboncredits.com/verra-biochar-methodology-to-generate-carbon-credits/
6. https://carboncredits.com/real-voluntary-carbon-market-value-is-2-billion/
7. https://carboncredits.com/when-to-purchase-carbon-credits/
8. https://carboncredits.com/us-forest-questionable-carbon-credits/
9. https://carboncredits.com/who-verifies-carbon-credits/
10. https://carboncredits.com/best-ways-companies-can-cut-carbon-emissions-3-tips-that-work/
11. https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-best-carbon-credit-to-buy/
12. https://carboncredits.com/the-4-best-carbon-offset-programs-for-2023/
13. https://carboncredits.com/how-to-invest-in-carbon-credits-carbon-etfs-and-carbon-stocks/

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

National Association of State Energy Offices (NASEO) Publishes New Report on Energy Efficient and Healthy K-12 Public Schools

NASEO released a new publication, Energy Efficient and Healthy K-12 Public School Facilities: Opportunities for State Energy Offices and State Education Agencies to Collaborate (Report), detailing how State and Territory Energy Offices and their state agency partners can play an important role in supporting sustainable, energy efficient, and healthy K–12 public school facilities.

For State and Territory Energy Offices, school energy programs can be an opportunity to support multiple goals: workforce development, helping communities manage their energy costs, supporting community resilience, increasing student and teacher energy literacy, and meeting statewide energy and emission reduction targets for buildings. The Report presents opportunities and recommendations for State and Territory Energy Offices to collaborate with State Education Agencies to help local school districts with:

  • Stakeholder engagement and decision-making,
  • Energy data management,
  • Facility design and planning,
  • Access to funding and financing,
  • Technical assistance for facilities management staff, and
  • Compliance with codes and standards.

The Report mentioned installing insulation three times (emphasis added in the following text for Insulation Outlook readers) as a technology that should be prioritized to help reduce energy and help free up money for the schools.

On page 8 of the Report, it states,

State Education Agencies and local districts may not prioritize energy savings measures or energy efficiency improvements because energy is a relatively small budget item and is treated as a “fixed cost.” Reducing energy expenditures, however, can free up crucial funds for other budget requirements and be used to address annual facilities funding gaps. To support local education agencies (LEAs) in conducting facility energy improvements, some State Energy Offices provide lists of approved energy service providers and contractors, template solicitation and contract documents, and other resources.1 Through these offerings, states can facilitate Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) for LEAs, which are typically offered through energy service providers to allow budget-neutral building improvements that require no up-front costs and are instead paid back through incremental energy cost savings. ESPC projects may include purchasing and
installing new high-efficiency HVAC systems, insulation improvements, window replacements, LED lighting installations, and more. Using ESPCs, LEAs can make facility improvements that help improve occupant health, such as optimizing thermal comfort with adequate heating and air-conditioning systems, replacing outdated and poor-performing HVAC systems, and introducing smart controls for energy and indoor air quality systems. LEAs can also reinvest savings in other areas, including capital improvements to meet various health and safety needs, hiring and retaining teachers, and supporting the schools’ educational mission.

Further insights on page 10 noted,

While the nation’s elementary and secondary public school districts vary in enrollment size, geography, demographics, and access to capital from tax revenue, bond authority, and other sources of funding, they share many of the same types of facilities challenges. School districts with economically disadvantaged students making up 65% or more of their student population (“high poverty” school districts) spent 37% less per school on capital investments over a 10-year period than school districts with economically disadvantaged tudents making up less than 33% of theirstudent population (“low poverty” school districts).4 According to a 2020 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report describing the needs of K–12 public schools nationally, about half of the schools visited required HVAC system updates, with aged and leaking equipment damaging flooring and ceiling tiles and leading to mold and indoor air quality problems.5 Chronic underinvestment in required capital projects due to budget constraints and the need to meet high operating costs are resulting in accumulated building deficiencies that negatively affect occupant health, safety, and educational attainment.

Using expanded tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act allowing direct pay for
local governments, such as the 48E investment tax credit, the 45W commercial clean vehicle tax credit, and the 179D tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings (alone or in combination with grants and financing mechanisms like ESPC to conduct low-cost retrofit projects with short to medium [5–15 year] payback periods), LEAs can free up funding from annual operations budgets through energy cost savings. Low-cost retrofit projects may include envelope upgrades, efficient lighting installations, and insulation improvements. By packaging energy efficiency measures that reduce operational energy costs with mechanical ventilation measures for improved indoor air quality or AC to address extreme heat, LEAs can more reliably anticipate investments to generate positive returns or, at the very least, break even over the lifetime of the equipment upgrade. LEAs can utilize subsequent budget savings and state-supported financing solutions to implement combined renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that shield districts from future energy cost volatility.6 Increasing efficiency at K–12 school buildings mitigates unnecessary energy costs, frees up funding for other crucial school district uses, and provides pathways for schools to manage future energy costs.

Resources:
1. One such example is the Energy Savings Performance Contracts program through the New Mexico Energy Conservation and Management Division, New Mexico’s State Energy Office. The agency maintains state price agreements with nine energy service companies.
Since 2013, the State Energy Office has approved 35 projects, including four in K–12 schools. These projects have resulted in more than $11.5 million in annual savings and reduced energy consumption by an average of 31.9% per project. New Mexico Energy Conservation and Management Division, Energy Savings Performance Contracts. New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (www.emnrd.nm.gov/ecmd).
2. U.S. Department of Education (December 2022) Frequently Asked Questions: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs, Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Programs (www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/ESSER-and-GEER-Use-of-Funds-FAQs-December-7-2022-Update-1.pdf).
3. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary & Secondary Education Supporting America’s School Infrastructure Grant Program (SASI) (www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-birth-grade-12/school-infrastructure-programs/supporting-americas-school-infrastructure-grant-program-sasi).
4. Filardo, Mary (2021). 2021 State of Our Schools: America’s PK–12 Public School Facilities 2021. 21st Century School Fund (www. Facilitiescouncil.org/s/SOOS-IWBI2021-2_21CSF-print_final.pdf).
5. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2020). K–12 Education: School Districts Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems Needing Updates or Replacement. (GAO-20-494). United States Government Accountability Office (www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-494.pdf).
6. Torcellini, P., Zaleski, S., McIntyre, M. NREL. (2021). Affordable Zero Energy K–12 Schools: The Cost Barrier Illusion. (https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/80766.pdf).

 

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

LEED v5 for the Mechanical Insulation Industry

Background

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) introduced its first green building rating system, LEED 1.0, in the United States back in 1998. “LEED” is short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, and LEED is currently “the world’s most widely used green building rating system”1 for the built environment.

The intent and benefit of LEED is for commercial and residential buildings to be built and operate through the efficient use of our planet’s natural resources. LEED-certified buildings are better for the environment, people, and business.

Environmental concerns addressed and rewarded by LEED include reductions in energy and water consumption, the utilization of renewable energy, waste diversion, and the preservation of land and sensitive habitats.

Human concerns include factors positively affecting building occupant well-being, such as optimized indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and acoustics.

Business factors include the fact that while the USGBC estimates that LEED-certified total cost of ownership is approximately 2% more than non-LEED designed projects, return on investment is realized through lower operational costs and higher resale values throughout the life of the building. In addition, tenant employees generally express higher levels of satisfaction, which results in lower turnover; and consumers tend to reward businesses that reside in healthy indoor environments and operate with sustainability as a way of doing business.

The USGBC created a rating system for all building types and phases:

  • Building Design and Construction (BD+C)
    New construction
    Core and shell
  • Interior Design and Construction (ID+C)
    Commercial interiors
  • Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M)
    Existing buildings
  • Neighborhood Development (ND)
  • Homes
  • Cities

BD+C, ID+C, and O+M include applications for project types such as data centers, health care, hospitality, retail, schools, and warehouses and distribution centers.

The LEED rating system awards points within eight credit categories for the achievement of prerequisites and sustainable design attributes.

The credit categories are:

  • Location and transportation,
  • Sustainable sites,
  • Water efficiency,
  • Energy and atmosphere,
  • Materials and resources,
  • Indoor environmental quality,
  • Innovation, and
  • Regional priority credits.

LEED-registered projects can earn one of four different levels of certification based upon total point achievement.

  • Certified = 40 to 49 points
  • Silver = 50 to 59 points
  • Gold = 60 to 79 points
  • Platinum = 80+ points

Since 1998, the LEED rating system has continually evolved to the more recent LEED v4 (2013) and LEED 4.1 (2020). LEED v5 is currently in a public comment stage and is scheduled to be launched in Q1 2025. Future updates will occur every 5 years, with v6 to be launched in 2030.

Since v4.1 registrations will be accepted through the end of 2025, the construction industry will experience typical overlap between v4.1 and v5 beyond 2025.

The approach of LEED v5 is holistic and intended to drive a low-carbon future that is equitable and resilient, and that promotes the wise utilization of all resources. New impact areas are prioritized and weighted for credit point distribution as follows:

  • Decarbonization (50%),
  • Quality of life (25%), and
  • Ecological conservation and restoration (25%).

The number of rating system scorecards has been reduced to four.

  • Two for building design and construction (BD+C):
    New construction and major renovations
    Core and shell development
  • One for interior design and construction (ID+C): commercial interiors
  • One for operations and maintenance (O+M): existing buildings

Additionally, the credits required to achieve the LEED Platinum rating have been increased.

Mechanical Insulation and the New Impact Areas

The new impact areas share a common focus with the use of mechanical insulation.

  • Decarbonization: By helping to reduce energy use, mechanical insulation can prevent CO2 emissions—which is at the root of decarbonization. Further, insulation itself is a low embodied carbon material.
  • Quality of Life: Properly insulated buildings enhance occupant well-being by reducing noise, maintaining optimum temperature, protecting people from spread of fire, etc. In industrial use, insulation also enhances personnel safety. Mechanical insulation can attenuate unwanted noise, assist with delivering thermal comfort, ensure life safety in the event of fire, and deliver personnel protection.
  • Ecological conservation and restoration: As means to achieve energy efficiency, mechanical insulation prevents unnecessary use of fossil fuels. When building mechanical systems (piping, equipment, and ductwork) are properly insulated and maintained, energy consumption and greenhouse gases are reduced through the reduction of heat loss/gain when compared to bare or under-insulated system components.

Material and Resources Credits

Below are the applicable credits under the Materials and Resources (MR) credit category. Relevant impact areas appear in parentheses.

MR Credit: Optimized Building Products (1 to 5 points, Quality of Life, Ecological Conservation and Restoration)

The content in this section is taken from the USGBC website,2 only lightly edited and reformatted here for ease of reading.

Intent: To encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products from manufacturers who have optimized their products across multiple impact areas.

Requirements: Select nonstructural building products that achieve multiple optimization criteria across five impact areas: climate health, human health, ecosystem health, social health and equity, and circular economy.

Figure 1 illustrates how eligible multi-attribute product documentation and certifications are valued in LEED. Column A lists the eligible types of product documentation, while columns B through F indicate how each product documentation or certification is valued across the optimized product impact areas. The values in columns B through F represent a “multi-attribute score” for the product, which will be multiplied by the number of products, cost, area, or volume, depending on the credit option and pathway chosen in Option 1 or Option 2.

A single product may only claim one multi-attribute score per impact area (up to the maximum score achieved for the product from columns B through F). Some products may have one single attribute, in which case the multi-attribute score is worth the total for that documentation type. Other times, a single product may have more than one certification or documentation, in which case the maximum values from the columns B through F are added together to obtain a single multi-attribute score (multiplier) for the product, up to a maximum of score of 5.0. Note that double counting of impact areas is not allowed.

For example, if a product has a Product-Specific Type III Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) and a Cradle to Cradle Silver certification, that product will receive a multi-attribute score of 4.0, as follows:

  • Column A: Climate Health – 1.0 score (maximum of 1.0 from Product-Specific Type III EPD and 0.5 from Cradle to Cradle Silver),
  • Column B: Human Health – 1.0 score from Cradle to Cradle Silver,
  • Column C: Ecosystem Health – 1.0 score from Cradle to Cradle Silver,
  • Column D: Social Health and Equity – 0.5 score from Cradle to Cradle Silver, and
  • Column E: Circular Economy – 0.5 score from Cradle to Cradle Silver.

Next, there are two options to consider:

  • Option 1: Product Disclosure and Optimization from All Product Categories (1 to 2 Points)
  • Option 2: Optimized Product Categories (1 to 6 Points)

Option 1: Product Disclosure and Optimization from All Product Categories (1 to 2 Points)

This option involves selecting and installing nonstructural materials that are optimized across multiple impact areas according to Figure 1. Products can come from any category, as long as they are permanently installed. Products with eligible documentation are valued for their multi-attribute score, up to a maximum score of 5 per unique product. (See Equation 1 for an example of how to calculate multipliers for a unique product.)

Points are awarded according to Table 1.

Equation 1. Determining Number of Optimized Products

A single product valuation = 1 product X “
multi-attribute” score
Example:

  • A permanently installed product has a multi-attribute score (sum of columns B through F from Figure 1) of 3.5 across multiple impact areas.
  • The product is worth 3.5 “products” for the purposes of Option 1 credit calculation.

Option 2: Optimized Product Categories (1 to 6 Points)

Select and install nonstructural materials that are optimized across multiple impact areas according to Figure 1. Create a bill of materials and categorize products by the following product categories:

  • Insulation–measured by cost or area
  • Adhesives and sealants–measured by cost, volume, or area
  • Paints and coatings–measured by cost, volume, or area

Earn up to 5 points for selecting optimized products in multiple product categories.

  • Any single product category that includes more than 100% of optimized products earns 1 point.
  • Any single product category that includes more than 200% of optimized products is eligible for 1 exemplary performance point.

The amount of optimized products per product category is calculated by multiplying each individual product’s value (cost, area, volume, or unit) times the product’s multi-attribute score from Figure 1 (columns B through F). Each individual product’s multi-attribute score in the product category is then added together to determine the total optimized product value for that product category.

To determine if the product category includes enough optimized products to earn points, compare the total optimized product value for the category to the total value (without multipliers) for all products in the product category, including those products that do not have sustainability attributes.

1. MR Credit: Low-Emitting Materials (Quality of Life)

According to the USGBC, there also are notable changes to this credit category, from v4.1 to v5, where thermal insulation and installation products have often contributed to LEED registered projects.

  • Credit Category:
    v4.1 – Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ)
    v5 – Materials & Resources (MR)
  • Points:
    v4.1–1 to 3 points
    v5–2 points
  • Insulation:
    v4.1–At least 75% to all insulation products must meet the VOC emissions evaluation; HVAC and plumbing piping insulation excluded.v5–All insulation products must meet the VOC emissions evaluation; HVAC and plumbing piping insulation excluded; project teams may elect to include HVAC insulation at their discretion.
  • Adhesives & Sealants (all interior adhesives and sealants wet applied on site):
    v4.1–At least 75% of all adhesives and sealants, by volume or surface area,
    must meet the VOC emissions evaluation, and 100% meet the VOC content evaluation.v5–All adhesives and sealants, by volume or cost, must meet the VOC emissions and VOC content evaluation. A VOC content budget may be used.
  • Paints and Coatings (all interior paints and coatings applied on site):
    v4.1–At least 75% of all paints and coatings, by volume or surface area, must meet the VOC emissions evaluation, and 100% meet the VOC content evaluation.v5–All adhesives and sealants, by volume, cost, or surface area, must meet the VOC emissions and VOC content evaluation. A VOC content budget may be used. Foamed in-place and sprayed insulation must be included in Insulation category.3

Carbon

LEED BD+C: New Construction v5 – Carbon Assessment looks at a 25-year projected carbon assessment for the project. The intent is to understand and reduce long-term direct and indirect carbon emissions including on-site combustion, grid-supplied electricity, refrigerants, and embodied carbon. The assessment needs to utilize the data from the following prerequisites:

  • EA Prerequisite: Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan
  • EA Prerequisite: Fundamental Refrigerant Management
  • MR Prerequisite: Assess Embodied Carbon
  • Optional: LT Credit: Transportation Demand Management

Summary

Mechanical insulation will continue to contribute to the Energy and Atmosphere (EA) credit category through enhanced energy efficiency.

Potential credit contributions in the Indoor Environmental Quality category include Thermal Environment and Sound Environment.

Depending on the project location, mechanical insulation may also contribute to the Project Priorities and Innovation (IN) credit category.

The challenge for industry manufacturers will be to offer LEED project design teams product solutions that are optimized across v5 impact areas: climate health, human health, ecosystem health, social health and equity, and the circular economy.

References
1. https://www.usgbc.org/leed
2. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction/v5-public-comment-1-39?return=%2Fcredits%2FNew%20Construction%2Fv5%20%20Public%20Comment%201%2FSustainable%20sites
3. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction/v5-public-comment-1-38?return=/credits/New%20Construction/v5%20-%20Public%20Comment%201

 

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

NIA Contractor Members Discuss System Design: Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding

NIA is proud of the professionalism, creativity, and artistry of our Contractor members. To celebrate the craftsmanship of NIA mechanical and industrial insulation contractors, in 2023 we unveiled the first-ever NIA Insulation Project Art Gallery Showcase and Competition. We invited all NIA insulation contractors to submit photographs and a brief description of projects representing their most creative and artistic efforts. At Fall Summit, we posted all the submissions anonymously, and attendees voted for the top three projects in terms of number of parts insulated, aesthetics, difficulty of installation, and well-installed application. As a regular column, we have profiled the projects submitted, focusing this month on Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding. We encourage NIA Contractor members to participate in the Insulation Project Art Gallery Showcase and Competition, and possibly be featured in future articles.

PROJECT SNAPSHOT

Insulation Contractor: Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding
Industry Segment: Industrial
Type of Plant/Facility: Petroleum
Temperature Range: High-Temperature System
Region: Midwest
System/Application Type: Hot Oil Tank and Vessels
Insulation Materials: 
  • Hot Oil Tank – Polyisocyanurate, Dow
  • Horizontal Vessels – Mineral Fiber, ROCKWOOL ROXUL
Jacketing: 
  • Hot Oil Tank – 0.024 Aluminum, RIDGLOK® Pre-Fabricated
  • Panel System
  • Horizontal Vessels – 0.024 Aluminum Sheeting, RIDGLOK
  • Pre-Fabricated Panel System
Insulation Support:
  • Hot Oil Tank – Cable Design, Locking Seam Panels, RIDGLOK
  • Removable Insulation Covers, Fit Tight Covers
  • Fasteners – Aluminum Banding, Screws, Pins

 

Project Description and Goals

The project involved reconditioning an existing oil tank and insulation of newly installed horizontal tanks and piping at a petroleum plant. Gribbins was responsible for installing insulation and lagging on two horizontal vessels, as well as installing a prefabricated insulated vertical panel system on a crude oil tank.

Project goals were heat conservation and personnel protection. For personnel safety, insulation was required to bring the outside surface temperature of the system below OSHA maximum limits.

Challenges

The project presented several physical challenges, one of which was site congestion. As shown in Photos 1 and 2, the crude oil tank to be insulated was virtually surrounded by obstacles, including adjacent tanks, motors, pumps, and stairs. The Gribbins insulation crews needed 100% hands-on access to the tank, while maintaining 8 to 12 inches of clearance from the face. This required a highly skilled team to design and construct scaffolding around the tank for safe access. For this aspect of the project, Gribbins was a logical choice, as industrial and commercial scaffolding is a core capability of the company, which has its own scaffolding division.

Site crowding also meant there was limited space for storage of materials and tools (see Photo 3), which required coordination among the multiple trades working on site. Gribbins was able to create temporary material storage on the scaffolding while working on the tank head (see Photo 4).

In addition, the weather presented a physical challenge: extreme heat. Project Foreman Bill White notes, “The biggest obstacle we faced was beating the heat/humidity and keeping our guys hydrated and happy in direct sunlight all day while wearing fire-retardant clothing.” To accomplish that, the team followed the tenets of the company’s safety program, fending off heat exhaustion and other complications by scheduling frequent breaks, making hydration a priority, and covering the topic in its routine on-site safety coordination meetings. As Gribbins Safety Director Adam Mayer explains, “With heat being our major obstacle, we provided our employees with proper training on how to recognize and identify the signs/symptoms related to heat stress/exposure. We mitigated heat exposure by requiring employees to take additional breaks throughout the shift and provided ample shaded and air-conditioned areas on site. Additionally, we supplied workers with cold water and hydration drinks to replace electrolytes, fluids, and sugars.”

Finally, along with the physical challenges, the customer described an additional issue they hoped the installation could address: Workers would need access to the interior of the large tank periodically for maintenance inspections.

The Gribbins Solution

As noted above, the project involved both new construction (two horizontal vessels/deaerator tanks) and the reconditioning of an existing hot oil storage tank. Although both elements were insulation installations, the differences between the structures and their applications meant that different approaches—and different solutions—were required. Gribbins Project Foremen Bill White and Rick Champell made sure that both sets of requirements were met.

Table 1 offers an overview of insulation system components, as well as product types and brands used.

Horizontal Vessels – New Construction

To address the customer’s goals for the horizontal vessels, Gribbins installed mineral wool insulation for heat conservation under 0.024 aluminum jacketing. At that thickness, the aluminum provided protection and support for the insulation underneath, while also providing aesthetic appeal. Banding was used for securement on the body jacketing, and screws with washers were used on the heads. Photos 5 through 7 show the results of the installation.

Hot Oil Storage Tank – Reconditioning

This part of the project required not only expertise in insulation installation but also in scaffolding design, installation, safe use, and dismantling. Gribbins uses industry-specific software to assist in scaffold design, considering critical factors including site conditions, access points, load capacity, and work scope. For this job, they utilized a cuplock scaffolding system for its quick assembly and versatility. The modular design, combined with the unique cup and blade locking mechanism, allows for rapid installation and easy customization to suit a variety of structure heights, shapes, and sizes. Figures 1 and 2 show the design.

Of course, design is just the first step. Gribbins maintains a team of trained, professional scaffold erectors qualified to assemble and maintain scaffolding safely during project performance, and then dismantle and remove it safely once the job is finished. Photos 8 and 9 show how Gribbins used the scaffolding to complete the complicated installation.

For the hot oil tank, Gribbins installed a dual system: polyisocyanurate insulation to limit heat transfer, with the same pre-fabricated RIDGLOK 0.024 aluminum sheet jacket. Richard Daugherty, Industrial Accounts Manager with Gribbins, explains, “Utilizing tank panels offers numerous benefits. They are less labor intensive, are cost-effective, and provide a longevity of up to 12 years for the insulation panel system.” These benefits notwithstanding, installation was not simple. As Foreman Bill White puts it, after the extreme heat, “The next challenge was getting the panels in place, then stacking the second layer and aligning the laps properly using pulleys, ropes, clamps, and good old-fashioned teamwork and communication.” Photos 10 and 11 show what the system looked like as it was being installed, giving a clear picture of why experienced, trained crews were critical to getting the job done safely and correctly.

To accommodate the additional need for worker access to the tank interior without compromising or interfering with the RIDGLOK insulation system, Gribbins coordinated with the customer to have a 4” C-Channel over a 10’ x 10’ opening, shown in Photo 12. Gribbins then had Fit Tight Covers removable insulation covers fabricated for the opening.

Safety Focus

Between the complexity of the scaffolding work and the extreme heat, this project could have been high risk for on-the-job injury or illness. A Platinum-Level NIA Safety Excellence Award winner for the past 5 years running, and certified by the Coalition for Construction Safety, Gribbins counts safety among its core values (along with integrity, quality, and service). Company founder, Jim Gribbins, was ahead of his time in 1999 when he hired a Safety Director. Now, the company has two full-time professional safety personnel in its safety department: the Safety Director and a Safety Coordinator. They spend the majority of their time on jobsites, working with project managers, supervisors, and crews to ensure that everyone is focused on safety in the performance of their work. The company’s many safety awards are truly earned in the field, on projects like this one, where Gribbins employees perform their tasks under a range of challenging conditions safely and efficiently.

Project Takeaways

The importance of a safety culture cannot be overstated, particularly in a complex project like this one, but there are several other key takeaways:
  • Safety = Quality and Efficiency
    Adhering to safety standards does not mean sacrificing efficiency. Gribbins project foremen observe that the crews’ ability to follow the instructions and standards provided actually facilitated on-time delivery of a high-quality long-term result.
  •  The Value of a Trusted Professional
    Working with a professional contractor you can trust yields benefits all through the process. In this case, consulting with Gribbins in design of the tank access point allowed the customer to get the opening for routine maintenance they need without compromising the integrity of the insulation system. Additionally, this project required not only expertise in insulation installation, but also the skills and experience to design, construct, use, and dismantle the scaffolding needed for the install.
  • Communication Is Vital to Project Success
    Communication should include all parties involved—e.g., engineers and owners consulting with the insulation contractor on how to meet design objectives; holding pre-construction meetings with all contractors before a project starts to ensure proper scheduling and job execution; and incorporating continued communication throughout project performance to identify and mitigate any potential risks early and keep the project running smoothly.

As Gribbins President Brian Willett sums it up, “This project exemplifies our commitment to delivering top-notch insulation solutions for various industries, thereby contributing to energy efficiency and the well-being of workers. The work performed on vessels and tanks stands as a testament to our dedication to safety, quality, and efficiency in the field.”

Strength in Numbers

Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding was responsible for project performance and ultimate
customer satisfaction. At the same time, as we have seen with other projects featured in this series, many of the insulation products used were made and/or fabricated by other
NIA members, including the following:

About Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding

Founded in 1985, Gribbins Insulation & Scaffolding has grown into a leading commercial and industrial mechanical insulation and scaffolding contractor. The company specializes in insulating mechanical and process systems—such as piping, ductwork, and special equipment—for a wide variety of facilities, including hospitals, schools, power plants, and manufacturing buildings. To better serve its customers, and meet their growing needs, Gribbins launched its scaffolding division in 2021.

Integrity, quality, safety, and service are at the core of everything they do. The company’s mission is to maximize customer satisfaction by providing the highest level of safety, quality, and productivity, leading to optimum employee fulfillment and company profit.

With multiple locations across Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and Ohio, Gribbins primarily operates throughout the Midwest, although the company’s extensive project portfolio spans states including Texas, Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Florida, and even
the Bahamas.

For more information, please visit www.gribbins.com/about.