Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

What Lies Beneath?

The July steam pipe explosion in New York City raises questions about the city’s underground infrastructure, asbestos in pipe insulation, and how to rebuild.

New York City moves at a pace that is unmatched, so when a large underground steam pipe ruptured in the middle of rush hour on Wednesday, July 18, 2007, it was no small disruption in the city’s usual state of constant motion. The explosion took place near Grand Central Terminal at Lexington and 41st Street. Because it occurred near a water main, the result was a blast of steam, water, and debris shooting hundreds of feet into the air. The eruption left a 25-foot crater in the street, a wrecked tow truck in the middle of the hole, and the windows of a nearby (and luckily empty) school bus blown out. More than 40 people were injured, and one woman died of cardiac arrest. As serious and frightening as the explosion was, there was some comfort in the cause: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was able to promptly point to a steam pipe, rather than terrorism, as the root of the explosion.

The 24-inch pipe was laid in 1924 as part of the 105-mile steam system now maintained by Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) as a vital energy conduit for many commercial and residential Manhattan buildings. It has been hypothesized that heavy rainstorms may have left the pipe surrounded by cold water, causing dangerous condensation in a closed section of pipe, which led to the blast. This phenomenon, known as water hammer, occurs when cold water mixes with steam, and pressure in a pipe increases dramatically.

The New York City explosion raised many critical questions, including the following:

  • Would asbestos—which the pipe was wrapped in—be found in the air and the debris?
  • How would the clean-up be handled, and how quickly could businesses in the area be back up and running?
  • What about the underlying infrastructure for this and similar systems in other cities? What are the chances that this will occur again, and how can it be avoided?
Testing for Asbestos

The number one concern for city officials was the possibility of asbestos in the air. Like many older pipes, this one was wrapped in asbestos for insulation. Unfortunately, this was not the first time Con Ed and New Yorkers faced the fear of exposure. In 1989, a major steam pipe explosion occurred near Gramercy Park—killing three people—and the company waited 4 days before notifying area residents that they might have been exposed to the carcinogen. This time, apparently having learned from the earlier misstep, company representatives said almost immediately after the blast that they assumed asbestos had been released into the air.

Within an hour of the incident, Con Ed had shut down parts of Manhattan’s underground system and stopped the blast of steam. As repair personnel assessed the damage and dug through the rubble, testing for asbestos began and an investigation got under way. The city enforced a “frozen” zone between 40th and 43rd Streets, and between Vanderbilt and Third Avenues.

According to a press release from Con Ed, following the steam-pipe rupture, Con Ed and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted extensive air monitoring in the area, testing numerous samples of muddy debris for asbestos. It was confirmed that there was no airborne asbestos present, although several samples of debris did contain asbestos.1

The Clean-Up Begins

Clean-up efforts at the site began as soon as the steam was turned off and the workers could get started. Fire Department crews hosed down building exteriors in the frozen zone around Grand Central Terminal. According to NYTimes.com, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that special street sweepers with high-efficiency filters were set to start roaming the area vacuuming up debris.2

A New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) press release stated that OEM is coordinating the interagency response to the explosion. Other agencies participating in the effort include the New York Police Department (NYPD), the Fire Department, the DEP, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOH), and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Fortunately, there are no structural defects or breaches of the subway infrastructure, and no debris from the explosion was found in the subway tunnels nearby.3

Specially trained contractors are leading the clean-up efforts, and building inspectors and forensic engineers are helping OEM. Electrical work also is necessary before the frozen zone can be opened up again fully. As of July 20, a Con Ed press release noted that all but 5 of 19 steam service customers in the area had their service restored, and work was continuing to restore the remaining customers’ service.1

Several steps must be taken before buildings near the blast can be reopened. Owners of contaminated buildings will have to hire qualified inspectors to check their ventilation systems and interior spaces for asbestos. If buildings are found to be contaminated, owners will have to hire certified contractors to clean them before occupants can return. (Con Ed will reimburse owners for these efforts.) According to NYC.gov, the following steps must be completed before New York City will clear a building for reoccupation.

  • Street entrances must be cleared for pedestrian traffic.
  • Utility services must be restored.
  • Building owners and managers must submit building inspection, clean-up, and testing results to the DOH.
  • The Fire Department must approve the building for public access.
  • The building must be inspected by the DOH and cleared for re-entry.4

A July 24, 2007, press release from the Office of the Mayor notes that Governor Eliot Spitzer and Mayor Bloomberg have announced that the State has requested a Physical and Economic Injury Disaster declaration from the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) to assist New York businesses affected by the steam pipe explosion. If approved, this will provide additional aid to business owners as they try to rebuild. More than 1,000 business suffered severe economic damage from the incident.5

Could the Blast Have Been Avoided?

Of all the questions raised by the explosion, perhaps the most important is whether the incident could have been avoided in the first place. The underground infrastructure in New York City and other U.S. cities consists of miles of steam pipes, some of which date back to the early 1900s and are wrapped in asbestos insulation. Perhaps it is time to examine whether these pipes should be replaced altogether—a topic on which there are varying opinions.

According to NYTimes.com, in March, Con Ed workers repaired a leaking steam main under 41st Street and Lexington Avenue, the site of the July 18 explosion. Con Ed says that on March 14, repair crews patched a minor leak where two segments of the pipe were joined. On June 10, Con Ed responded to complaints about another, smaller pipe that was leaking about 25 feet east of the main pipe that exploded at the Midtown intersection. The large pipe that eventually burst was visually inspected on June 8 and again on July 18, just hours before the explosion, and workers noted no cause for concern.6

Clean-up must be completed before workers can climb down into the crater and investigate the pipe, which lay about 15 feet below the street, along with wires, cables, and sewer pipes. To many, it seems that the age of the system would have to play a role in such a massive failure; but Con Ed notes that parts of the steam pipe network in the city are 100 or more years old with no history of failing, so the pipe’s age should not have been the issue. The most likely scenario is that cold water from the rain, and the resulting condensation, led to the blast.

Steam is a critical component of New York City’s power infrastructure, as well as those in other Northern cities like Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. It is used to power buildings like the Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center, as well as hospitals, museums, and colleges. It consumes less space than alternatives, such as boilers or other bulky and expensive machinery, and it is a greener technology than other options because in many cases it is a by-product of electricity generation. Because steam pipes are buried, they are usually less susceptible to extreme weather conditions.

Still, a massive explosion in the middle of Midtown calls the city’s infrastructure into question, just as it did after the Gramercy Park explosion in 1989. NYTimes.com reports that Con Ed replaced its cast-iron piping with stronger steel pipe and removed or replaced more than 200 vulnerable pipe joints since that event. It also replaced the asbestos insulation with woven fiberglass in all of its manholes and anywhere crews have repaired steam pipes. It has left asbestos-wrapped pipes in other places because replacing them would involve digging up most of the streets of Manhattan.6

So the question, in the end, might be whether the July 18 explosion indicates that a more expensive and disruptive “emergency” approach should be taken on a wider scale throughout the city as a preemptive measure.

Disclaimer: Whenever asbestos must be removed or cleaned up, use a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. For more information, go to www.insulation.org. Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed in any article in Insulation Outlook do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Insulation Association (NIA).

REFERENCES

(1) www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20070720.asp
(2) www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/nyregion/20asbestos.html?ex=1187236800&en=de9074df643157a3&ei=5070
(3) http://home2.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/pr/07_07_19_steam_pipe3.shtml
(4) http://home2.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ei/20070725_asbestos.shtml
(5) www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2007b/pr25407.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1
(6) www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/nyregion/20explode.html?ex=1187236800&en=09c32e3b293a7c00&ei=5070

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Quality Check

Certification program creates a new resource for purchasers of building materials.

Improving indoor air quality and reducing mold growth are quickly becoming top priorities for all types of commercial building projects. Many factors—including the presence of moisture and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—can affect indoor air quality. Testing for microbial growth helps point to problems that can lead to product deterioration. One organization leading the way in testing, studies, and indoor air quality certification is the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute (GEI). This industry-independent, nonprofit organization oversees the GREENGUARD Certification Program, which helps improve indoor air quality products, environments, and buildings.

Interior building materials and products are often the source of chemical emissions and VOCs, which can be significant contributors to indoor air pollution. “Even products that are installed behind walls and ceilings, such as insulation, can expose occupants to irritating chemicals and odors,” says Carl Smith, chief executive officer (CEO) of GEI. “For this reason, many major insulation manufacturers have developed low-emitting products that meet the GREENGUARD Certification Program’s standards for indoor air quality. By providing better products, manufacturers can have an important impact on occupant health and well being.”

The GREENGUARD Indoor Air Quality Certification Program for Low-Emitting Products uses independent, third-party testing to identify low-emitting products and materials. By voluntarily participating in the program, insulation manufacturers can address the growing green movement with products certified to meet end users’ needs. This and other valid certifications will become visible to architects, designers, product specifiers, and purchasing organizations, and these end users soon will be choosing products certified to meet certain indoor air quality and microbial resistance standards over those that are not. Certification is a win-win: It allows for testing that proves insulation materials are top-quality products, and it addresses the green initiatives currently at the forefront of the industry.

Mold Matters

Substantial mold growth on building materials can cause serious health issues for building occupants, and it has the potential to cause expensive damages to commercial buildings. By choosing moisture-resistant products, contractors and other end users can successfully manage these risks.

At www.greenguard.org, GEI lists representative samples of products found to be microbial resistant when tested to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard. This is a new resource benefiting building owners, engineers, and facility managers who purchase building products. Building owners also may look into using these products to try to reduce their liability.

Microbial Resistance: The GREENGUARD Pilot Study

The analytical approach used to determine microbial resistance was developed under a study of certain building materials conducted by Air Quality Sciences and piloted over 21 months. The test method was based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) research guide, published as ASTM 6329-98 (2003), “Standard Guide for Developing Methodology for Evaluating the Ability of Indoor Materials to Support Microbial Growth Using Static Environmental Chambers.” A 9-month laboratory study was performed (Phase 1), followed by a year-long pilot study of products submitted for testing (Phase 2), to confirm and validate the type of mold, consistency of results from control samples, time course of mold growth, and different responses of the various materials tested.

Ten manufacturers participated in the study. Products tested included insulation, adhesives, flooring, and wall covering. In Phase 1, researchers developed a baseline across newly manufactured products and established a ranking system. In Phase 2, the call was made to manufacturers; products were tested and then compared across types and constituency. Testing was designed to provide reliable, quantitative, and reproducible results across a wide range of building materials.

In Phase 1, samples were inoculated with measured amounts of spores of a single common mold. One set of samples and controls was harvested immediately (within 1 hour) to provide a baseline value. The other set of samples and controls then was incubated under controlled conditions at 95-percent relative humidity for 3 weeks. The amounts of mold recovered from the baseline samples and at the end of 3 weeks of incubation were quantified to determine the materials’ degree of resistance to mold growth. Results were reported on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being least resistant (highly susceptible to mold growth) and 5 being most resistant to mold growth, based on a quantitative count of mold colonies. (See Figure 1.)1

More information on the evaluative method used to identify microbial resistance in specific products is available at www.greenguard.org/uploads/TechDocs/GGTM.P040.R0.pdf.

Making the List

Once a product is tested and proven to resist mold growth under established environmental conditions, it is listed in the GREENGUARD Listing for Microbial Resistance at www.greenguard.org/Default.aspx?tabid=155. The products on this list were submitted voluntarily for testing by manufacturers who want to reduce their liability risks by confirming that their products are moisture and mold resistant. Once a product passes the test, GEI lists it for 1 year. After that, it must be re-tested to remain on the list. GEI receives an administrative fee for listing the products.

What Is GREENGUARD Certification?

The first GREENGUARD Certification was awarded in fall 2002. Since then, more than 100 manufacturers in a variety of industries have joined the program and now offer GREENGUARD Indoor Air Quality Certified® products. Other certification programs offered by GEI include GREENGUARD for Building Construction and GREENGUARD Children & Schools. Manufacturers can take advantage of these programs to demonstrate their commitment to health and safety, as well as the environment. It is a lucrative way to become a part of the green movement while providing better, safer products. (See “Steps to Certification” sidebar.)

GREENGUARD for Building Construction is particularly useful to the insulation industry. This program protects lenders, insurers, and building developers from mold risk by ensuring that best practices are used to reduce mold growth and its resulting financial impacts. GEI developed a standard for mold growth prevention best practices, and the program certifies that buildings meet this standard and monitors their compliance over time. This is valuable to both developers and insulation end users because it increases a building’s value to potential occupants who are concerned with their health and the environment. (To learn more, see “GREENGUARD for Building Construction” sidebar.)

The GREENGUARD Certification Program complies with established indoor air quality standards, such as the EPA’s purchasing requirements, the State of Washington’s Indoor Air Quality program, Germany’s Blue Angel program, and the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. Once a manufacturer’s products are certified, they can carry the GREENGUARD mark and are listed in the GREENGUARD Online Product Guide. These identifiers help end users identify and purchase certified, low-emitting products and materials.

Insulation is just one of the materials tested in the certification process. GEI has developed standards for chemical and particle emissions, and it tests products to ensure that they meet those standards. These standards establish certification procedures (including test methods), allowable emissions levels, product sample collection and handling methods, testing type and frequency, and program application processes and acceptance.

Figure 2 shows emission criteria for insulation in the GREENGUARD Certification Program. Other product categories tested are listed on the website.

By testing materials for microbial growth, pollutants, and VOCs, the GREENGUARD program and others like it are carving out a path to a greener future. Helping companies provide high-quality products that improve moisture resistance and indoor air quality can lead to better health and safety, cleaner overall environments, and more reliable building materials.

For more information on GREENGUARD, please call GEI at 800-427-9681 or visit www.greenguard.org.

REFERENCES

(1) www.greenguard.org/uploads/GGTR002MRPilotStudy.pdf
(2) www.greenguard.org

Figure 1
Figure 2
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Introduction to Molds

Introduction to Molds

Molds live in the soil, on plants, and on dead or decaying matter. Outdoors, molds play a key role in the breakdown of leaves, wood, and other plant debris. Molds belong to the kingdom fungi. Unlike plants, they lack chlorophyll and must survive by digesting plant and other organic materials for food. Without molds, our environment would be overwhelmed with large amounts of dead plant matter.

Molds produce tiny spores to reproduce, just as some plants produce seeds. Mold spores can be found in both indoor and outdoor air, and on indoor and outdoor surfaces. When mold spores land on a damp spot, they may begin growing and digesting whatever they are growing on to survive. Since molds gradually destroy the things they grow on, one can prevent damage to building materials and furnishings, as well as save money, by eliminating mold growth.

Moisture control is the key to mold control. Molds need both food and water to survive; but since molds can digest most things, water is the factor that limits mold growth. Molds often will grow in damp or wet areas indoors. Common sites for indoor mold growth include bathroom tile, basement walls, areas around windows where moisture condenses, and near leaky water fountains or sinks. Common sources or causes of water or moisture problems include roof leaks, deferred maintenance, condensation associated with high humidity or cold spots in a building, localized flooding due to plumbing failures or heavy rains, slow leaks in plumbing fixtures, and malfunction or poor design of humidification systems. Uncontrolled humidity also can be a source of moisture leading to mold growth, particularly in hot, humid climates.

Health Effects and Symptoms Associated With Mold Exposure

When moisture problems occur and mold growth results, building occupants may begin to report odors along with a variety of health problems, such as headaches, breathing difficulties, skin irritation, allergic reactions, and aggravation of asthma symptoms. All of these symptoms may be associated with mold exposure.

All molds have the potential to cause health effects. Molds produce allergens, irritants, and, in some cases, toxins that may cause reactions in humans. The types and severity of symptoms depend on the types of mold present, the extent of a person’s exposure, the age of the individual, and his or her existing sensitivities or allergies.

Specific reactions to mold growth can include the following:

  • Allergic reactions. Inhaling or touching mold or mold spores may cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Allergic reactions to mold are common and can be immediate or delayed. They may include hay fever–type symptoms, such as sneezing, runny nose, red eyes, and skin rash (dermatitis). Molds spores and fragments can produce allergic reactions in sensitive individuals whether the mold is dead or alive. Repeated or single exposure to mold or mold spores may cause previously non-sensitive individuals to become sensitive. Repeated exposure has the potential to increase sensitivity.
  • Asthma. Molds can trigger asthma attacks in people who are allergic (sensitized) to molds. The irritants produced by molds also may worsen asthma in non-allergic (non-sensitized) people.
  • Hypersensitivity pneumonitis. This condition may develop following either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to molds. The disease resembles bacterial pneumonia and is uncommon.
  • Irritant effects. Mold exposure can cause irritation of the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs, and sometimes can create a burning sensation in these areas.
  • Opportunistic infections. People with weakened immune systems (immune-com-promised or immune-suppressed individuals) may be more vulnerable to infections by molds (and can be more vulnerable than healthy persons to mold toxins). Aspergillus fumigatus, for example, has been known to infect the lungs of immune-compromised individuals. These individuals inhale the mold spores, which then start growing in their lungs. Trichoderma also has been known to infect immune-compromised children. Healthy individuals are usually not vulnerable to opportunistic infections from airborne mold exposure. However, molds can cause common skin diseases, such as athlete’s foot, as well as other infections.

This article has been reprinted in part with permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For expanded information, please visit www.epa.gov/mold/mold_remediation.html.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Improving From the Outside In

CASE STUDY: Insulation upgrades to the outside pipelines at NOCO Energy Corporation improve energy efficiency—and the company’s bottom line.

NOCO Energy Corporation has a large terminal operation outside of Buffalo, New York, in Tonawanda. From that terminal, NOCO distributes petroleum and petroleum products to the western New York area. Among the petroleum-based products that NOCO distributes are asphalt and No. 6 fuel oil, which must be kept in heated storage tanks and distribution pipelines. Without heated tanks, piping, and equipment, these products cannot be pumped.

Multiple Challenges To Meet

Over the years, it became increasingly difficult for NOCO to maintain adequate temperatures in storage tanks and pipelines. This resulted in slow pumping and transfer rates through the pipelines, as well as periodic plugging. These problems made it difficult to run the terminal efficiently and cost-effectively.

NOCO’s location along the shore of Lake Erie in western New York did not help. Winter temperatures can reach −20°F, annual snowfall surpasses 90 inches, and winds average 12 miles per hour (mph), with peak winds well over 50 mph. These severe factors made maintaining sufficiently high operating temperatures more difficult—and even more critical.

The situation was aggravated further by the terminal layout. It is spread out, requiring long pipelines from the lakefront barge-loading facilities and the storage tanks. Additionally, the terminal used a heated-oil heat transfer fluid to maintain the temperatures in the storage tanks and pipelines, with the heaters located at the northern end of the terminal. This also made for long heated-oil transfer lines.

The final problem was the terminal’s damaged insulation systems, especially on the product pipelines and heated-oil supply lines. All of these lines are located in ground-level horizontal pipe racks. Over the years, between people stepping on the pipelines, maintenance activity, and the effect of the Buffalo-area weather, the insulation systems degraded. The systems’ poor condition contributed significantly to the terminal’s difficulty maintaining temperature in the asphalt and No. 6 fuel oil tanks and pipelines.

First Solutions First

Revision of the heated-oil transfer system was the first priority. Management submitted a project to design and install another heated-oil heater, located toward the southern section of the terminal. Revising the system would improve heat transfer and pumping efficiency.

The terminal staff believed upgrading the insulation systems would improve the overall reliability and efficiency of the systems, as well as save on energy costs. With the help of the New York State Energy Development and Research Authority (NYSERDA)—see “NYSERDA Offers Energy-Saving Expertise”—and the engineering firm Clough, Harbour, & Associates, they performed an evaluation of all of the insulation systems and determined the economic impact of upgrading all affected insulation systems, including the addition of 2 inches of insulation to the existing 2 inches. Because the terminal had a readily available, low-cost fuel source for the heated-oil heaters in used motor oil, the initial evaluation indicated an unusually long payback period for an insulation upgrade project like this—around 3 years.

An Unexpected (and Lucrative) Turn of Events

About the time the original assessment was performed, terminal staff found that the used motor oil being used for fuel in the heated-oil heaters was in greater demand. So any fuel saved from burning in the heated-oil heaters could be sold profitably. This increased interest in the insulation upgrade.

The new heated-oil heater was installed, but only some of the insulation was upgraded for several reasons, including schedule, equipment availability, and budget. Part of the problem was the fact that the insulation systems were much more damaged than originally assumed (see Figures 1 to 4) and had to be completely replaced. Because the addition of the new heated-oil heater and some rerouting of heated-oil lines were projected to actually increase fuel consumption and cost to the terminal, it became more complex to analyze the benefit of the insulation upgrade project to the overall facility.

Through the efforts and resources of NYSERDA, a review of the work and an analysis of the energy savings on the upgraded insulation systems were performed using both proprietary and 3E Plus® software (see “The Power of 3E Plus”). The following are the results of the analysis:

  • Projected energy savings of approximately 10 billion Btus per year or more than $87,000
  • Projected used motor-oil savings (that can be sold in the marketplace at approximately $1 per gallon) of around 87,000 gallons
  • Projected payback: slightly more than 1 year
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction: more than 2.3 million pounds of this greenhouse gas per year
  • More than 4,500 pounds of nitrogen-oxygen compounds (NOX) class of regulated emissions, which includes both greenhouse gases and other gases that influence the mixing ratio of greenhouse gases

“Though it is difficult to quantify the fuel savings that resulted from this project, the original heating system was grossly undersized for our needs,” says Val Speek, terminals and facilities manager at NOCO Energy Corporation. “Burners were running at a 100-percent firing rate and were unable to meet the Btu demand for heating our asphalt. The addition of a new thermal fluid heater and the replacement of damaged insulation resulted in a surge of customer satisfaction. The heater played a major role in maintaining our marketing tanks at an acceptable temperature, while the replacement of damaged line insulation increased efficiency and eliminated customer complaints of cold asphalt.

“This is the first year I can remember having no problems loading asphalt in the cooler weather,” Speek adds.

Paul D. Tonko, NYSERDA’s president and chief executive officer (CEO), says, “Through NYSERDA’s FlexTech program, we’ve assisted NOCO in operating its distribution terminal more efficiently while maintaining profitability. Our study of the facility identified significant areas of energy-efficient infrastructure and productivity improvements to the rail facility, heat transfer system, tank farm, and pump motors. As a result, NOCO’s $5-million capital investment has led to $500,000 per year in energy and productivity benefits, 16 indirect jobs, and the equivalent of 20,000 barrels of oil saved annually. NYSERDA is proud to have partnered with NOCO Energy Corporation and Clough, Harbour, & Associates in making the necessary energy efficiency upgrades at the facility.”

Even better than the projected cost savings and emission reductions from energy efficiency is the fact that the properly insulated lines now pump product easier and faster, with far fewer plugging problems, allowing the terminal to operate more efficiently and profitably. The facility’s overall result is a win-win situation—a better-running terminal, more recycled motor oil to sell rather than burn in the heated-oil heaters, and less environmental impact due to fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Figure 1
Figure 2
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Corrosion Under Insulation: Prevention Measures

The article “CUI: An In-Depth Analysis,” which appeared in the November 2006 issue of Insulation Outlook,1 described the mechanism of corrosion under insulation (CUI) for carbon steel and stainless steel, as well as prevention tools and techniques available to minimize CUI’s effects. This article, published in the September 2007 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine, provides a more in-depth analysis of the non-traditional—but perhaps more effective—CUI prevention measures.

Innovative Prevention Measures

Conventional techniques for preventing CUI, especially on carbon steel, rely on application of an organic coating. Expensive, non-destructive inspection is conducted periodically. After 3 to 7 years of service, the insulation often needs to be stripped and the carbon steel equipment prepared to be recoated and re-insulated. Emphasis is placed on designing and installing the insulation system to avoid water ingress on the metal surface. Many insulated 300 series stainless steel systems are inadequately being non-destructively examined, and only the design and installation of the insulation system is relied upon to prevent CUI. Some stainless steel systems also have been coated using an organic coating to act as a water barrier. The conventional CUI prevention techniques rely heavily on inspection and maintenance, and they are expensive. Often, the cost of inspection makes up more than 80 percent of the cost of recoating a pipe system.

In recent years, the CUI prevention philosophy of many large petrochemical companies has been an inspection-free, maintenance-free concept. Insulated systems—particularly piping systems—are expected to have a service life of 25 to 30 years. Evaluation of life-cycle savings has led to consideration of new, simple approaches to preventing CUI. Some of the newer techniques include the following:

  • Applying thermal spray aluminum (TSA) on carbon steel to prevent general corrosion, and on austenitic stainless steel to prevent stress corrosion cracking,
  • Using aluminum foil wrapping on austenitic stainless steel pipe to prevent stress corrosion cracking,
  • Using duplex alloys for better stress corrosion cracking resistance,
  • Using wire personnel protection cages in cases where insulation is used for personnel protection.
Thermal Spray Aluminum

There is no doubt that the reliability and lifetime of an insulated system is primarily dictated by the coating system. To achieve a lifetime of more than 25 years, corrosion experts recommend TSA for carbon steel. It has been documented that one TSA-coated vessel has been operating with wet insulation in CUI conditions for more than 50 years with no maintenance or recoating throughout its lifetime. It is highly likely that the use of TSA coatings will increase significantly in the petrochemical industries in the next few years.

TSA also works well in conditions too severe for organic coatings, such as temperature cycling above and below 300°F (149°C) for more reliable, maintenance-free service. TSA coatings can be used up to a service temperature of 1,000°F (537°C). It protects equipment by acting as a barrier and serves as a sacrificial anode, protecting the substrate at the sites of any chips or breaks in the coating.

The U.S. Navy has demonstrated that using TSA has substantially reduced the cost of its corrosion-control efforts aboard ships.2 Several large petrochemical companies have increased the use of TSA in their plants and have shown that large savings can be obtained based on life-cycle costs.3 Over a 20-year cost analysis, replacing or recoating an existing carbon steel pipe with a TSA-coated carbon steel pipe—versus replacement with painted carbon steel (which needs to be painted at least once during this period)—resulted in a savings of more than 100 percent.3 The development of more mobile thermal spray equipment with high deposition efficiency is likely to increase the use of TSA in the chemical processing industry.

Figure 1

Basic TSA Techniques

All thermal spraying processes rely on the same principle of heating a feedstock, accelerating it to a high velocity, and then allowing the particles to strike the substrate. The particles will deform and freeze onto the substrate. The coating is formed when millions of particles are deposited on top of each other. With TSA, these particles are bonded to the substrate mechanically.

The first step of any coating process is surface preparation. This is done by cleaning and white metal grit blasting the surface to be coated. Masking techniques may be adopted for components that only need specific areas coated. The second step is to atomize the aluminum, which is done by introducing the feedstock material into the heat source. The heat source may be produced by either chemical reaction (combustion) or electrical power (twin wire arc spray). Next, the particles are accelerated to the substrate by the gas stream and deform on impact to make a coating. Finally, the coatings are inspected and assessed for quality by either mechanical or microstructural evaluation.

The two common thermal spray techniques used to apply TSA to components are wire flame spray and twin wire electric arc spray. Adhesion to the substrate is considered largely mechanical and is dependent on the work piece being very clean and suitably rough. Roughening is carried out by grit blasting to a white metal condition with a sharp, angular profile in the 50-to-100 micron (2-to-4 mil) range. Flame and arc spraying require relatively low capital investment and are portable; they are often applied in open workshops and on site. Consumables used for TSA with these processes are more than 99-percent purity aluminum wires.

Figure 2
Wire Flame Spraying

This technique—the oldest of the thermal spraying processes—also is referred to as combustion wire or oxyfuel wire spray process. It is useful for applying relatively inexpensive coatings. A wide variety of materials can be sprayed by this process, and the vast majority of components are sprayed manually.

The wire flame spraying process employs a set of drive rolls powered by an air turbine or an electric motor to draw a metal alloy wire through the combustion spray gun. At the gun nozzle, fuel gas of acetylene, propane, propylene, or natural gas is mixed with oxygen in precise volumetric proportions using a siphon plug. It is then ignited to create a flame, which is shaped at the gun’s air cap by compressed air. The metal wire is fed concentrically into the flame, melted, and atomized by the compressed air. The molten droplets are propelled toward a prepared surface, where they solidify and bond to the substrate to form a coating. This technique is preferred to electric twin arc because of its greater than 90 percent deposit efficiency rate when spraying aluminum. In addition, it generates less smoke or dust.4

Twin Wire Electric Arc Spraying

The electric arc wire spray process uses two metallic wires, usually of the same composition, as the coating feedstock. The two wires are electrically charged with opposing polarity and are fed into the arc gun at matched, controlled speeds. When the wires are brought together at the contact point, the opposing charges create enough heat to continuously melt the tips of the wires. Compressed air is used to atomize the now-molten material and accelerate it onto the workpiece surface to form the coating. In electric arc wire spray, the weight of coating that can be deposited per unit of time is a function of the electrical power (amperage) of the system, and the density and melting point of the wire. Push, pull, or push/pull mechanisms can be used to feed the wire at a constant rate, depending on the columnar strength of the wire.4

Figure 4 (Table 2): Chemical Composition of Duplex Stainless Steels
Aluminum Foil Wrapping

Aluminum foil wrapping of austenitic stainless steel has been used successfully for more than 30 years by chemical companies in Europe to prevent ESCC. (This technique has not been widely accepted in the United States.) The aluminum foil provides a moisture barrier and electrochemical protection by preferentially undergoing corrosion and maintaining a safe potential for stainless steel. The system relies on good weatherproofing and the prevention of immersion conditions. It can be applied by the insulation contractor, takes less time to apply than a coating, and requires minimal substrate preparation.

Wrapping pipe with 46 SWG (wire gauge) 0.1-millimeter (mm) aluminum foil can prevent CISCC of stainless steel pipe operating continuously between 60°C and 175°C. The pipe should be wrapped with 50-mm overlap, formed to shed water on the vertical line, and held with aluminum or stainless wire. The foil should be molded around flanges and fittings. Steam-traced lines should be double wrapped, with the first layer applied directly onto the pipe, followed by the steam tracing, and then more foil over the top. On vessels, the aluminum foil is applied in bands held by insulation clips and insulation support rings.5

The comparison between aluminum foil and conventional painting of austenitic stainless steel piping and vessels is illustrated in Table 1.

Figure 3 (Table 1): Comparison of Aluminum Foil Wrapping and Conventional Painting of Stainless Steel Piping and Vessels (Footnote 6)
Duplex Stainless Steels

To eliminate ESCC, higher nickel, chromium, and molybdenum-containing alloys (super stainless steels) and lower nickel/higher chromium duplex alloys can be used. These alloys are more resistant to SCC and resistant to ESCC under insulation. Although some of the duplex alloys are slightly higher in cost than the 300 series austenitics, analysis shows that the duplex stainless steel alloys (especially the lean duplexes) may offer a low life-cycle cost alternative.

Duplex alloys have seen a significant increase in usage in the chemical industry as end users and fabricators in North America have become more comfortable with them. Table 2 shows the chemical composition of the various duplex stainless steel grades. The duplex alloys are characterized by their austenite and ferrite microstructure, which results in high strength and excellent chloride stress corrosion cracking (CSCC) resistance, as well as localized and general corrosion resistance. The established 2205 duplex grade accounts for 80 percent of duplex usage, although newer duplex grades have been developed for niche applications.

The “lean duplex grades” developed in recent years include LDX 2101 (Outokumpu), SAF 2304 (Sandvik), and AL 2003 (Allegheny Ludlum). These alloys have low molybdenum additions and are less prone to sigma phase formation during processing. LDX 2101 uses manganese rather than nickel to obtain the proper ferrite-austenite phase balance. The corrosion resistance of LDX 2101 is considered better than 304L stainless and is, in most cases, comparable to 316L. Because of the alloy’s CSCC resistance, it is a good candidate to replace 300 series stainless steels where CSCC due to CUI is a problem. SAF 2304 is essentially a low-molybdenum, more cost-effective version of 2205. SAF 2304 has similar pitting and crevice corrosion resistance to 316L, but it offers far superior CSCC resistance. AL 2003 was designed to exceed the corrosion resistance of type 316 at substantially lower cost than type 2205 duplex. The alloy has similar localized corrosion resistance to 317L and offers superior CSCC resistance.

The highly alloyed “super” duplex stainless steels have found applications in the chemical industry are Zeron 100 (Weir Materials) and SAF 2507 (Sandvik). Apart from having excellent CSCC resistance, these alloys have similar localized corrosion resistance to the stainless steels that contain 6-percent molybdenum.7 Note that duplex alloys are less susceptible to CISCC but are not immune.

Figure 5
Wire Personnel Protection Cages

In many instances, thermal insulation is used for personnel protection from hot surfaces. The unnecessary use of thermal insulation creates a location for potential corrosion. In these cases, wire “standoff” cages should be used instead. These cages are simple and inexpensive, and they eliminate CUI concerns.

Conclusion

This article provides discussion of the current CUI prevention philosophy and the techniques being implemented by large petrochemical and chemical companies to address CUI. The problem of CUI directly affects insulation end users across industries, and these techniques and considerations can greatly benefit those who choose to implement them.

Acknowledgements

Members of the European Federation of Corrosion Committee EFC WP 15 and NACE Committee RP 0198 have been active in producing recommendations to prevent CUI. The author recognizes the efforts of respective committee chairmen Stefan Winnik of Exxon Mobil and Murry Funderburg of Shell Global Solutions. The author also acknowledges James Weber of Sulzer Metco for providing his expert advice on TSA coatings.

References
  • (1) Hira Ahluwalia, “CUI: An In-Depth Analysis,” Insulation Outlook, Volume 51, Number 8, November 2006
    (2) R. Parks and R. Kogler, U.S. Navy experience with high-temperature corrosion control of lagged piping system components using sprayed aluminum coatings, “Corrosion under Wet Thermal Insulation,” CORROSION 1989 Symposium, pp. 71–76, NACE Publication, Houston, Texas, 1990
  • (3) B.J. Fitzgerald et al., CORROSION 2003, Paper No. 03029, NACE Publication, Houston, Texas
  • (4) James Weber, Sulzer Metco, james.weber@sulzer.com, private communication
  • (5) R. Smith, Eutech, Oral Presentation at Stainless Steel World Conference, Netherlands, 1999
  • (6) European Federation of Corrosion (EFC) WP 15 Corrosion in the Refinery Industry, CUI guidelines. Not yet published as of September 2007.
  • (7) Hira Ahluwalia, “Newer Nickel-Containing Alloys for Aqueous Corrosion Applications in the Chemical Processing Industries,” Stainless Steel World, Jubilee Issue, p. 68, Summer 2005.

Copyright statement

This article was published in the September 2007 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2007-2018 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author(s) of any article in Insulation Outlook are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIA. The appearance of an article, advertisement, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA. Every effort will be made to avoid the use or mention of specific product brand names in featured magazine articles.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Ask the Expert

Insulation Outlook’s new column features Dr. Hira S. Ahluwalia answering questions about CUI. Dr. Ahluwalia is president of Material Selection Resources (MSR), Inc., a materials engineering and corrosion consulting organization based in New Jersey that serves the chemical, pharmaceutical, fabrication, and metal industries. Dr. Ahluwalia has extensive experience in the field of corrosion and material science, and has published numerous technical papers. His areas of expertise include CUI prevention, material selection, corrosion testing, metallurgy, and failure analysis. He has a PhD in materials and corrosion engineering from Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. A 20-year ASM and NACE member, Ahluwalia is chairman of the NACE Annual Conference Program Committee. He is also a Nickel Institute consultant and Materials Technology Institute (MTI) consultant.

Q: How would you specify a reliable insulation system to avoid CUI if cost was not a factor?

A: For carbon steel systems that require insulation, the first line of defense would be to apply thermal spray aluminum (TSA) coating on the carbon steel. An organic sealer or topcoat would be applied over the TSA. Depending on the temperature range, closed cell cellular glass would be specified as the insulation material of choice. Aluminum or plastic sheathing would be specified, ensuring that the design minimizes entry of water through protrusions and seals. This type of specification will result in a cost-effective approach resulting in an inspection-free and maintenance- free approach with a service life of over 25 years.

For stainless steel systems that require insulation and are in the chloride stress corrosion cracking range, aluminum foil wrapping would be specified as a CUI preventive measure. Closed cell cellular glass would be specified as the insulation material of choice. Aluminum or plastic sheathing would be specified, ensuring that the design minimizes entry of water through protrusions and seals. For new systems, consideration would also be given to using the lean or conventional duplex stainless steel alloys.

Q: How would you specify an insulation system for carbon steel to minimize CUI if cost was a major factor?

A: Risk analysis would be conducted by considering factors such as safety, environment, and financial impact. If one assumes a low-risk scenario, an organic coating may be specified as the corrosion barrier, although a TSA coating would be encouraged. Depending on the temperature, thermal property requirements, and cost, any of the commercially available insulation types with low permeability would be specified. Aluminum or plastic sheathing would then be specified as the outer barrier. This type of specification requires high maintenance and the lifetime may be less than 10 years. It is important to consider life-cycle costing in specifying an insulation system rather than considering the up-front insulation system cost.

Q: What about mineralization conversion coatings?

A: Mineralization conversion coatings can be applied electrolytically or with the use of gels, tapes, and sprays. A review of case histories and relevant literature indicates that mineralized conversion coatings can be very effective in preventing general corrosion of carbon steel, and perhaps chloride stress corrosion cracking on stainless steel surfaces. The principle behind this system is to create a highly basic localized environment and introduce silicates that create a protective mineral layer on the metal surface.

Q: We have carbon steel piping systems that are insulated but were not coated. How do we assess their risk of CUI?

A: This can be done using a risk-based inspection (RBI) protocol to assess the potential of CUI. By assessing the consequence of failure in terms of health and safety, environment, and financial impact—and by determining the probability of failure for each corrosion circuit—one can develop a matrix for prioritizing where to deploy inspection and maintenance resources to mitigate CUI risks. More details of this technique will be provided in a future article.

Readers are encouraged to send case histories on other innovative techniques that have been used to prevent CUI to the author at hira@doctormetals.com. Readers are encouraged to submit their own insulation questions to the experts by e-mailing asktheexpert@insulation.org. Questions can be on any insulation topic. Business and legal issues will be featured next month, followed by general industry or insulation questions. Future topics will include green building, LEED, acoustics, bril, and refractory.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted in the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author, as in any article in Insulation Outlook, are those of the author, are based upon the limited information provided to the author in the question asked, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Insulation Association (NIA). The appearance of an article, advertisements, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Trendsetters: Paving the Way to a Cleaner World

The green movement is sweeping the globe, and with all of the pressure to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, several companies (listed below) are taking the lead by making significant corporate efforts to go green. Businesses in the insulation industry will see that implementing similar initiatives can lead to savings of both energy and money.

Subaru

According to Subaru.com, this car company has focused not only on its vehicles, which have 90-percent cleaner emissions than the average new vehicle, but also on its manufacturing plants. The website notes that when you carry out your trash at home on the next collection day, you’ll be sending more trash to landfills than the entire Subaru manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana (SIA), does. In 2006, SIA was awarded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Gold Achievement Award as a top achiever in the agency’s WasteWise program to reduce waste and improve recycling. As part of its recycling efforts, Subaru uses recycled plastic bottles as insulation, plastic bumper waste as bumpers, scraps from clothing manufacturers as base trim layers, and paint sludge and used paper as vibration-absorbing door panels. Insulation materials under the hood, in the panel under the engine, and in the bulkhead of Subaru vehicles are used to reduce noise and decrease emissions.1

BP

According to BP.com, BP was one of the first major energy companies to publicly acknowledge the need to reduce carbon emissions. Since 2001, the company has been tracking the underlying growth of BP emissions from its business growth and comparing it to the emissions reductions achieved across its operations. After 5 years, the company estimated that some 11 million tons of growth have been offset by around 6 million tons of sustainable reductions. In 2004, BP began a $450-million energy efficiency program, and in 2005, BP Alternative Energy was set up to reduce carbon emissions. BP is investing in solar, wind, hydrogen, and natural gas power projects. It is also developing biofuels, introducing cleaner fuels into the global marketplace, and engaging policy makers in positive actions to protect the environment.

Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart, an innovative company that has become a global force, has set ambitious environmental goals for itself. In 2004, Wal-Mart launched a company-wide initiative. The following aggressive goals for sustainability define its plan:

  • To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy:
    • Existing stores should be 25 percent more efficient in 7 years.
    • New stores should be 30 percent more efficient in 4 years.
  • To create zero waste:
    • A 25-percent reduction in solid waste should be achieved after 3 years
    • All private brand packaging should be improved in 2 years.
  • To sell products that sustain both its resources and the environment:
    • A 20-percent supply base should be aligned in 3 years.2

Wal-Mart got a jump on its goals in 2005, when two experimental stores opened in McKinney, Texas, and Aurora, Colorado. Several environmentally friendly technologies were tested there, and in 2007 the company opened its first High-Efficiency store (in which many of these technologies were put to use) in Kansas City, Missouri. These new High-Efficiency stores will use 20 percent less energy than a typical Supercenter, and will integrate industry-leading heating, cooling, and refrigeration systems to conserve energy.3

Stonyfield Farm

Stonyfield Farm is just as committed to a healthy planet as it is to providing healthy food. According to Stonyfield.com, the company takes the following five-step approach to reducing global warming and addressing climate change:

  • Improving efficiency to reduce global warming gases. By improving efficiency at its New Hampshire yogurt-making facility, Stonyfield Farm has saved more than $1.7 million and 46 killowatt-hours (kWh) of energy over the past 10 years. That type of energy savings could be accomplished in other types of manufacturing facilities—including those in the insulation industry—too.
  • Incorporating renewables. In 2005, Stonyfield Farm installed a 50-killowatt solar photovoltaic (PV) array on its yogurt manufacturing facility in New Hampshire.
  • Offsetting global warming emissions from facility energy usage. This company, which has won several national environmental awards, was the first in the United States to offset 100 percent of its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the energy used at its manufacturing facility.
  • Reducing packaging and solid waste. Through its reuse and recycling program, more than 8,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided.
  • Supporting organic farming. Organic farming reduces carbon levels by capturing atmospheric CO2 and trapping it in the soil.

Efficiency gains at the company’s manufacturing facility and CO2 reductions have come from many initiatives, including designing processes to incorporate heat recovery, installing energy-efficient motors and lighting, implementing energy-efficient building practices, making changes to refrigeration systems, and switching fuels. All of these initiatives make Stonyfield Farm a great example of what is possible when a company creates an environmental strategy and does what it takes to achieve its goals.

The Dow Chemical Company

According to Dow.com, the company reports on a Triple Bottom Line: 1) economics; 2) environment; and 3) society. This gives Dow a clear measure of its success in each of these areas. The company also has ambitious sustainability goals that it hopes to reach by 2015. It hopes to reduce energy intensity 25 percent from 2005 to 2015.

Dow has participated in several creative sustainable applications. One such effort occurred in 2003, when Dow donated enough of its THERMAX™ insulating foam to the Solar Oven Society to build 6,000 solar ovens. The insulation material was used in small ovens, allowing people in developing countries to cook using only the heat of the sun. This innovative project was a successful use of insulation to better the environment and help boost global energy efficiency.4

“Dow’s approach to Energy and Climate Change is comprehensive—including commitments to lower our own footprint, but also including the use of our products to help our customers lower their energy footprints,” says Scott Noesen, director of sustainable development for Dow.

A Greener Future

With these companies setting impressive corporate examples of how to go green, industry will be quick to follow. The initiatives outlined here are just the beginning.

References
  1. www.drivesubaru.com/Fall04_SubaruAndTheEarth.htm
  2. http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=345
  3. www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4716.aspx
  4. www.dow.com/commitments/studies/solarovens.htm
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Today’s Energy Challenges: How Did We Get Here, and How Do We Regain Control?

In retrospect, June 11, 2007, may be a huge milestone in the advancement of industrial energy efficiency. On that day, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) announced its intention to promote energy efficiency to its 300-plus member companies. To do this, NAM signed a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The goals are “to assist manufacturing facilities to initiate and implement energy management programs; to adopt clean, energy-efficient technologies; and to achieve continual energy efficiency and intensity reduction improvements.” The partnership aims to promote the vast collection of energy-efficient technologies, diagnostic tools, and reference materials developed or sponsored by DOE. Prominent among these items are steam-related technologies and, of course, mechanical insulation.

This is a remarkable event for a couple of reasons. One is the fact that NAM, as a member-driven advocacy association, engages industry at its corporate levels. This means that the energy efficiency message is being introduced to top-level decision makers, not just engineering and maintenance staff. Also of note is that NAM has historically advocated more energy production, rather than conservation. NAM’s recognition of the need for efficiency resources is an indicator of just how challenged manufacturers are by today’s energy markets.

How effective will NAM’s outreach be? The answer to that question varies with the receptiveness of each individual member company. Implementing efficiency means investing money, making some procedural changes, or both. These things do not happen without leadership, nor do they happen without untangling the issues—mechanical and organizational—that allow energy waste to happen. In other words, an organization’s ability to become energy efficient depends in part on understanding what makes waste possible in the first place.

How Does Waste Happen?

How does a plant become energy inefficient? Much of it has to do with the degradation of production assets over time, coupled with the emergence of newer, more efficient technologies. The reasons are also human in basis. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is the justification for long-entrenched work habits that become default procedures. Certain habits that save time and effort may be in place at the expense of greater energy consumption. These practices had little consequence when energy was cheap. However, the tradeoffs between time and money change as energy prices escalate. In most cases, equipment operators never see the bill for the energy they use, nor do the accountants paying the bill always understand how energy is used in their facilities. Reconciliation of energy costs is usually secondary to a plant manager’s need to meet production targets.

A facility’s investment in productive assets is a long-term commitment to a certain vintage of technology. Large, fixed assets will operate for years or even decades. This includes equipment like boilers, furnaces, and air compressors. In addition to these assets, most facilities operate complex production systems that employ a wide variety of smaller equipment, such as pumps, fans, and motors. Compared with the larger assets, these smaller components are more easily replaced. However, the design of the overall system in which they were installed is not as easy to change. Industries typically conduct multiyear planning cycles to organize major facility upgrades and system changes. Planning cycles allow facility managers to avoid frequent disruptions to their production schedules. These cycles take years to conduct and involve a number of considerations, including energy costs. This partially explains why many manufacturers do not respond immediately to proposed energy improvements, even if incentives are involved.

Over time, equipment operators begin to use energy in ways that engineers and other technicians never anticipated. These “services” represent industry’s unintended energy demand (and waste). Here are some examples:

  • Budget defense. Many organizations now maintain the fiscal habit of developing next year’s budget based strictly on the previous year’s performance. In other words, the department that successfully decreases its expenditures this year can actually be penalized with a smaller budget next year. While few managers actively promote waste, many more simply will not challenge it. They can then confidently prop up their funding request for the coming year’s budget. In terms of energy use, this again means running machines unnecessarily, using fuel-rich combustion settings, and ignoring losses attributable to steam or compressed air distribution leaks.
  • Comfort and convenience. Here is an example: Workers may use compressed air—an expensive plant utility—to perform work that could be performed just as effectively by a brush or broom. In some instances, a less expensive utility like flash steam could supplant the use of compressed air. An egregious example comes from one clever factory employee who “air conditioned” his work station with streams of compressed air, which he enjoyed by simply tapping several nozzles into overhead air distribution lines.
  • Proof of effort. In today’s competitive, cost-sensitive economy, a worker’s survival can depend on keeping busy, or at least appearing to keep busy. This may explain why many operators prefer to leave certain machines running, even when there is no work in process. Motor drives, pneumatic tools, and other factory machinery all make a distinct noise. A manager can detect what machinery is running without having to look—it can be heard. The sound implies, “Yes, we are busy.” The energy wasted by machines that run unnecessarily is of no consequence to the worker—the energy cost is not reflected in his or her paycheck. However, energy provides a very valuable service to the operator who wishes to maintain the appearance of being busy.
  • Safety. Lighting obviously contributes to the safety of working environments. Lighting “services” also are used to make a space more welcoming. It can become a habit to leave lights on regardless of the space—in storage rooms; break rooms; and, worse, in rooms that are already lit with natural daylight. As power becomes more expensive, these habits must be reconsidered. Sensors and programmable controls are readily available to make the decisions that humans cannot (or will not) make.

The take-away is that attempts to control energy use will almost always run afoul of someone’s dependence on the service that energy provides. Managers attempting to reduce energy waste must recognize and overcome the need to use energy for unproductive reasons.

How Can a Company Improve Its Energy Position?

Energy management starts with delegation. Many plant managers will put the energy burden squarely on the shoulders of one person, as if that individual can do it all. How can one person control energy costs when consumption reflects the daily decisions made by operations, maintenance, engineering, and finance staff? The energy manager might get great ideas from workshops, conferences, trade press, and professional networks, but no one else from the facility is picking up the same messages. The energy manager easily becomes a maverick, swimming against the tide of a facility’s disinterest (or worse).

This underscores the need for teamwork. A major hurdle to overcome is the interdepartmental rivalries that are usually fueled by competition for budget dollars. Energy managers must somehow overcome the “silos” of departmental authority. It is not uncommon, for example, for a procurement director to refuse to pay $10,000 for an energy audit that will identify many times that amount in potential financial savings for the company.

The key is for the energy manager to demonstrate to other department managers “what’s in it for them,” should they cooperate with a facility-wide energy management effort. More specifically, it is necessary to demonstrate how energy efficiency’s net benefits will filter down to a facility’s bottom line. This means overcoming departmental resistance to spending a dime that, in reality, will result in the entire organization’s saving a dollar.

The successful energy manager’s agenda becomes a hub from which win-win solutions are distributed to the departmental silos. The management team then works collectively, creating a whole value that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Just as industrial engineers can use tools developed by the DOE and others, top managers have a “toolkit” at their disposal. These tools are risk, time, and money. Use of any two of those three tools can be minimized, but it will be at the expense of the third.

For example, if the investment of time and money is minimized, a greater risk is assumed by simply not dealing with the root causes of energy waste and volatile energy prices. It means doing little, cheap, one-time projects, and switching fuels or fuel suppliers. By doing as little proactive energy management as possible, a company remains at the mercy of forces external to the organization, including changing technology, regulations, and volatile energy markets.

What if a company minimized its risk and investment of time? This can be done primarily by pursuing big capital projects (assuming that new equipment can do the work instead of people). But, of course, the big-project approach takes big money.

And if a company minimized its risk and investment of money? This can be done if the company is prepared to invest a lot of time. If, for some reason, the budget will not support the purchase of new, more efficient equipment, then the focus needs to be on the way people use and maintain current equipment. In short, this approach requires a culture change. Companies should be prepared to spend a lot of time boosting staff awareness of the energy-cost consequences of their daily work habits. They also must be prepared to encounter resistance. Energy managers will need to persuade and influence people, fostering and promoting success stories whenever they can be cultivated.

Forward-thinking companies will respond to NAM’s promotion of energy efficiency by changing the way they use energy. They likely often will begin by rethinking work habits and procedures. They will make an inventory of the “gap” between the efficiency of current assets and that of the best available assets. A business plan will establish financial energy metrics—monitored as least once per month—to guide the timing and amount of investments. They will document and replicate their success stories, and demonstrate direct contributions to the bottom line.

Top managers will discover quickly that energy use is as much a human issue as it is a mechanical one. To ignore the human component of energy cost control is to invite business risk. Awareness engenders accountability; and with accountability, companies have the motivation to actively manage energy risk.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The 2030 Challenege
Acting Now To Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Since buildings are responsible for almost half of all U.S. energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually, stabilizing emissions in the building sector and reversing them to acceptable levels over the next 10 years is critical to any attempt to address global warming and climate change. As a key stakeholder in the building sector, the construction industry and its suppliers have a major role in determining the success of any U.S. effort to bring its GHG emissions under control.

Often the best solutions to a crisis are overlooked or ignored because they are not new or sexy. Such is the case with global warming. The most effective, cheapest, and least damaging solution to this crisis involves practices and methods that are readily available. Good design and efficiency have been used for centuries to create buildings that work with the landscape instead of against it, and have only recently fallen by the wayside in the wake of plentiful, cheap fossil fuels.

Clearly, proper insulation plays a key role in ensuring that a building is efficient. It is essential that those in this industry bring insulation, as well as other materials and building methods that contribute to a building’s efficiency, into the discussion on climate change. Issues that must be addressed include not only the operating energy saved due to proper insulation, but also the type and amount of energy it takes to make the material. Proper insulation also plays a key role in meeting The 2030 Challenge, a global initiative issued by Architecture 2030. This initiative calls for all new buildings and major renovations to reduce their fossil-fuel GHG-emitting consumption by 50 percent by 2010, and for all new buildings to be “carbon neutral” by 2030. The 2030 Challenge specifically calls for the following:

  • All new buildings, developments, and major renovations should be designed to meet a fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting, energy-consumption standard of 50 percent of the regional (or country’s) average for that building type.
  • At a minimum, an equal amount of the existing building area should be renovated annually to meet a fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting, energy-consumption performance standard of 50 percent of the regional (or the country’s) average for that building type.
  • The fossil-fuel reduction standard for all new buildings should be increased in the following increments:
    • 60 percent in 2010
    • 70 percent in 2015
    • 80 percent in 2020
    • 90 percent in 2025
    • Carbon-neutral by 2030 (using no fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting energy to operate)

These targets may be accomplished by implementing innovative sustainable design strategies, as well as by generating on-site renewable power and/or purchasing (20-percent maximum) renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits. Design and efficiency can play the largest roles in achieving the goals of The 2030 Challenge. According to Architecture 2030, most developments and buildings can be designed to use only a small amount of energy at little or no additional cost through proper planning; siting; building form; insulation; glass properties and location; shading; material selection; and by incorporating natural heating, cooling, ventilation, and day-lighting strategies. The additional energy necessary to maintain comfort and operate equipment can be supplied by renewable resources, such as solar, wind, biomass, and other viable carbon-free sources.

The 2030 Challenge has been adopted and supported by numerous organizations, states, cities, and design firms, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors (Resolution number 50); American Institute of Architects; U.S. Green Building Council; the states of Illinois and New Mexico; the counties of Sarasota, Florida, and Fulton, Georgia; the international firms of Perkins & Will and HKS; and many others. All of those involved in deciding the energy footprint of buildings are encouraged to adopt and implement The 2030 Challenge within their areas of influence.

In addition to practicing and encouraging good design methods, those who wish to make a difference must also address the processes that are causing harm, or their efforts will not make a difference. Reducing GHG emissions is one of the key steps to avoiding catastrophic climate change worldwide, yet there are 151 conventional coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards in the United States. Seventy-six percent of the energy produced by these plants will be used to operate buildings. According to Edward Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, “People across the United States are investing large amounts of time, resources, and money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change, but if they allow conventional pulverized-coal plants to continue being built in the Untied States, all of their efforts are for naught.”

To bring this point home, Mazria explains that in just one year, the CO2 output of a conventional pulverized-coal plant negates the benefits of planting 30 million trees. He notes that “the annual CO2 emissions of a large conventional pulverized-coal plant would also negate the efforts of adoptees of The 2030 Challenge to reduce by 50 percent the fossil-fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of approximately half a million existing residences.”

According to Mazria, the next steps are congressional action on conventional pulverized-coal plants and an updated national Building Energy Efficiency Code Standard that incorporates the new benchmarks and 2030 Challenge targets, along with the financial incentives to implement the Standard.

To learn more about The 2030 Challenge and the work of Architecture 2030, please visit www.architecture2030.org.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Starting at the Top
An ambitious new energy program targets the world’s largest cities

On May 16, 2007, former President Bill Clinton announced the creation of a landmark global energy program. This Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program is a project of the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), which helps cities reduce their energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This program is a joint initiative, with participation from four of the world’s largest energy service companies (ESCOs), five of the world’s largest banks, and 16 of the world’s largest cities. The goal of the program is to create a coordinated effort to significantly cut energy consumption levels in buildings by providing both cities and private building owners with access to the necessary funds to retrofit existing buildings with more energy-efficient products. In a typical building, this will lead to a 20- to 50-percent energy savings.

“Climate change is a global problem that requires local action,” said President Clinton. “The businesses, banks, and cities partnering with my foundation are addressing the issue of global warming because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s good for their bottom line. They’re going to save money, make money, create jobs, and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once.”

According to www.clintonfoundation.org, buildings are responsible for more than 50 percent of GHG emissions in most cities and more than 70 percent in mature cities like New York and London.

Big Beginnings

The initial 16 cities that have agreed to participate in the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program and offer their municipal buildings for the first round of energy retrofits include Bangkok, Berlin, Chicago, Houston, Johannesburg, Karachi, London, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, New York, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Tokyo, and Toronto. These cities have agreed to work with the Clinton Foundation and its experts to develop programs to make their municipal buildings more energy efficient. They will also provide incentives to commercial building owners to retrofit their buildings with energy-saving technologies. The retrofit program will be consistent with, and work within, city procurement and tendering rules.

CCI and its partners will help train local workers on the installation and maintenance of energy-saving and clean energy products. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) have agreed to help coordinate these programs. Other features of the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program include the following:

  • Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Inc., Siemens, and Trane will conduct energy audits, perform building retrofits, and guarantee the energy savings of the retrofit projects.
  • ABN AMRO, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS will arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.
  • These banks will work with energy efficiency finance specialist Hannon Armstrong and CCI to develop effective mechanisms to deploy this capital globally. Cities and building owners will pay back the loans plus interest with the savings generated by reduced energy costs resulting from the building retrofits.
Clinton Climate Initiative

The Foundation’s CCI program was launched in August 2006. CCI is working with the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, an association of large cities dedicated to tackling climate change, to develop programs to reduce GHG emissions. Cities contribute approximately 75 percent of all heat-trapping GHG emissions to the atmosphere, while only comprising 2 percent of land mass.

CCI helps enable its partner cities to reduce energy use and GHG emissions in the following ways:

  • by creating a purchasing consortium that pools buying power of cities to lower prices of energy-saving products;
  • by calling on top experts in areas like building efficiency, clean transportation systems, renewable energy production, waste management, and water and sanitation systems for technical assistance in developing and implementing energy and emissions-reducing programs; and
  • by creating and deploying common measurement and information flow tools that participating cities can use to establish a baseline on GHG emissions, track the effectiveness of their emissions reduction programs, and share what works and what does not work with each other.

Additional steps that cities or other facilities can take to reduce energy consumption and employ cleaner energy include the following:

  • Create building codes and standards that include practical, affordable changes that make buildings cleaner and more energy efficient.
  • Conduct energy audits and implement retrofit programs to improve energy efficiency in municipal and private buildings.
  • Install more energy-efficient traffic and street lighting.
  • Implement localized, cleaner electricity generation systems.
  • Develop bus rapid transit and non-motorized transportation systems.
  • Use clean fuels and hybrid technologies for city buses, garbage trucks, and other vehicles.
  • Implement schemes to reduce traffic, such as congestion charges.
  • Create waste-to-energy systems at landfills.
  • Improve water-distribution systems and leak management.

The C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group includes Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Caracas, Chicago, Delhi, Dhaka, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Houston, Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Karachi, Lagos, Lima, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Manila, Melbourne, Mexico City, Moscow, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, Toronto, Tokyo, and Warsaw.

For more about CCI, please visit www.clintonfoundation.org. To learn more about the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, please visit www.c40cities.org.