ISN Insider

On April 17, 2013, a chemical explosion occurred at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas, that resulted in multiple fatalities and over 200 injuries. Investigators determined that this deadly explosion could have been prevented if safety hazards had been correctly identified and mitigated. In response to this tragedy, President Obama issued an Executive Order with the goal to “Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security” (EO 13650) on August 1, 2013.

Prompted by this Executive Order, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rule change to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements of Risk Management Programs (RMP), which is closely related to OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) rule and affects chemical process safety. These revisions are designed to both improve risk management systems at host facilities and increase communication between facilities and the public, including emergency response personnel, concerning site-related hazards and response requirements. In some cases, annual exercises to review emergency response plans may be required to ensure resources are in place in the event of an accidental release.

Zusätzlich dazu schlägt die EPA vor, die Anforderungen an die Unfalluntersuchung zu verschärfen, indem eine Fehler-Ursachen-Analyse als Teil der Unfalluntersuchungen erforderlich gemacht wird. Die verschärfte Regelung erfordert auch eine regelmäßige Analyse von Prozessen und Technologien mit hohem Gefahrenrisiko zur Bestimmung der Einsatzmöglichkeit alternativer Technologien.

Während diese vorgeschlagene Regelung sich auf Anlagen richtet, soll die stärkere Regelung die Sicherheit von chemischen Prozessanlagen für Arbeitgeber, Arbeitnehmer, Rettungskräfte und die Gemeinschaft insgesamt verbessern.

Es wird geschätzt, dass 113 Mio. Haushalte in den Vereinigten Staaten etwa 22 % des nationalen Energieverbrauchs ausmachen. Im Schnitt entfallen pro Haushalt mindestens 2.000 $/Jahr auf Stromrechnungen. Um den Energieverbrauch und die Betriebskosten zu senken, befolgen Sie diese einfachen Tipps:

1. Das Licht ausschalten
Wenn ein Zimmer nicht genutzt wird, schalten Sie das Licht aus und sparen Sie Geld. Zu Beginn des Jahres 2012 mussten Standard-Glühlampen 25 % effizienter als in den vergangenen Jahren sein. Lichtemittierende Dioden (LEDs) in den Lampen verbrauchen weniger Energie und halten bis zu 25 Mal so lange wie Standard-Glühlampen. CFL-Glühlampen (Compact Fluorescent Light) sparen zwar noch mehr Energie als die LED-Technik, dafür halten sie aber nur 10 Mal so lange wie die Standard-Leuchten.

2. Seal Air Leaks
If window, door, attic hatch, plumbing or ceiling fixtures are not sealed tightly, they can leak hot or cold air. When air leaks occur, it can add an additional cost of 10-25% to your heating bill. If a thermostat is regulating room temperatures, leaks can cause your heater or air conditioner to work even harder to maintain the set temperature. Covering windows with drapes or curtains will also help stabilize the temperature of the room.

Controlling room temperatures can be a challenge, especially as the seasons change. To lower your bill, keep your thermostat at the lowest temperature that is comfortable in cooler climates and the highest comfortable temperature in warmer weather.

3. Use ENERGY STAR Products
ENERGY STAR is a government backed program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Together, the EPA and DOE regulate which products are considered to be ENERGY STAR qualified. To qualify, products are required to use less energy, protect the environment and reduce utility costs.

The ENERGY STAR symbol placed on these products to assist consumers with easily recognizing energy efficient products, ranging from major appliances, electronics and lighting to new homes and commercial buildings. Through the use of ENERGY STAR products in 2010 alone, consumers saved the environment greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 33 million cars while saving $18 billion in utility costs.

For more tips on how to save energy, click here.

Resources:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/energy_savers.pdf
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_how_earn
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.mou
http://energy.gov/
http://www.epa.gov/

Western Australia’s Environmental Protection Agency granted approval to develop the first uranium mine in the country. This mine is expected to start production sometime between 2014 and 2015 and remain open for approximately 14 years.

The project will create approximately 350 jobs during construction and 200 permanent positions. The site will be located in Wiluna and is expected to export about four to five containers of uranium each month. For those living around the prospective site, the EPA confirmed there would be little exposure to uranium. The site will be carefully monitored to prevent any abnormal exposure levels.

Uranium is most commonly used to create nuclear energy.  Globally, 30 nations use nuclear energy to produce 16 percent of the world’s electricity. Uranium is also used for research and medical purposes, such as diagnosing and treating cancer.

Although the EPA has approved the first uranium mine in Australia, public appeals will be heard until June 5th.

Resources:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/default.aspx?id=23792&terms=nuclear%20power%20in%20australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-21/uranium-mine-in-wa-given-go-ahead/4023824
http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/was-first-uranium-mine-approved-by-epa/story-e6frfkur-1226362733110
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/toro-gets-environmental-nod-for-wa-uranium-mine-2012-05-21

There have been opposing views on the natural-gas drilling process known as “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing, being considered in New York this week.  Hydraulic fracturing is a proven technological advancement which allows producers to safely recover natural gas and oil from deep shale formations. This technology stimulates well production by injecting millions of gallons of water laced with chemicals down the well bore to crack surrounding shale.  Sources say it has the potential to not only dramatically reduce our reliance on foreign fuel imports, but also significantly reduce our national carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and accelerate our transition to a carbon-light environment.

Not everyone has agreed that this is environmentally friendly.  Opponents in New York are saying that water supplies are threatened by the shale gas development.  Environmental groups, who once viewed fracking as a better alternative to oil production, are now divided on whether or not regulations can adequately protect against environmental damage from hydraulic fracturing  Some even demand an outright ban of fracking.

There has been a coalition of groups including Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, and Riverkeeper, delivering comments to the Department of Environmental Conservation, (DEC).  Letters and a petition from other environmental groups were sent to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding environmental concerns. The petition had over 20,000 signatures citing, what they consider, serious flaws in the oversight plan by the DEC.

The groups are extremely concerned that the document by the DEC failed to address a plan for the disposal of millions of gallons of hazardous wastewater, an assessment of potential human health impacts, and to quantify any negative socioeconomic impacts, among others.

However, supporters of the technique say the proposed regulations will actually prevent environmental harm and drilling brings job opportunities and other economic benefits.  If there is overregulation, it will be too expensive for New York energy companies to drill.

Because of the opposition, it has now caused a delay in New York on drilling in the Marcellus Shale, which extends from southern New York to parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The gas drilling is moving forward in the other states, but New York drilling has been on hold since the review from the DEC since 2008.  At this time, the DEC commissioner, Joe Martens has not set a timeline for the review to be finished and issue permits to drill. However, Emily DeSantis, DEC spokeswoman said, “If the final documents determine high-volume hydraulic fracturing could move forward in New York, we could begin to review permit applicants after the final (environmental impact statement) is released.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also conducting its own scientific study regarding the impact water resources incur from hydraulic fracturing.  It is expected that the first findings of the study will be this year.

The DEC is to address each issue raised by the environmental groups to then move forward with permits. Only time will tell how beneficial or detrimental hydraulic fracturing will be for both our environment and economy.

Resources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577153190943260940.html?KEYWORDS=oil+and+gas+news
http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Pages/information.aspx

In 2008, TransCanada Corporation proposed a plan for the longest pipeline in North America, the Keystone XL Pipeline.  The pipeline is estimated to be 1,661 miles or 2,663 kilometers.  With a starting point in Alberta’s oil sands, the Keystone XL Pipeline  would carry the tar-sands crude through the Great Plains to the Gulf of Mexico.  Canada is currently considered the largest source of imported oil to the United States having produced 1.5 million barrels a day in 2010 and a projected production exceeding 2 million by 2015.  The Keystone XL has the potential to increase the pipeline capacity by 700,000 barrels per day.  An independent study provided by TransCanada found that the $13 billion pipeline project will produce a U.S. economic value of $20 billion.

The U.S Department of State has been working closely with a number of agencies to ensure that the development process addresses any concerns regarding environmental and safety issues.  With assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and the Department of Energy, the State Department worked to address concerns from the public.  Since the beginning of the project in 2008, public meetings and open houses have taken place in six states collecting pages of information and responses to questions. 

There have been a number of concerns from numerous environmental organizations regarding the safety measures should an incident occur.  This has stalled the project for the time being.  TransCanada stated they plan to construct one of the safest, well planned pipelines in use today.  A computerized control center that is manned 24 hours a day and 365 days a year will monitor every aspect of the steel pipeline.  Should an incident occur, isolation and shut down of the affected section would be immediate due to controls and monitors placed throughout the pipeline, as well as remote access to secure the site.  Due to a PHMSA requirement, TransCanada has created an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) that will be initiated to minimize effects to the surrounding area.  The plan incorporates its own personnel as well as contract resources.

Where does it go from here?  As of December 7, 2011 President Obama had yet to approve the Keystone XL plan.  In November, the State Department announced that a final decision regarding the pipeline will not happen until an environmental analysis is done on a new route through Nebraska that will bypass its Sand Hills region.  This will most likely push the final decision into 2013.

Resources:
http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/science/earth/keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-reroute.html
www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69988.html
http://transcanada.com/5893.html
http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html