Sample Article PortfolioSome Factual Perspectives on the Future, Viability of the U.S. Coal Industry

(01/2017)

Coastal Restoration, Protection Projects Help Reduce Disaster Losses(01/2017)

Lead Contamination of Drinking Water Extends Well Beyond Michigan’s Woes(10/2016)

New Federal Policy Preps U.S. Industry for Production of Automated Vehicles(10/2016)

U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Makes a Return After a Two-Decade Hiatus(07/2016)

Industrial Modernization En Route with Additive Manufacturing Processes(04/2015)

Construction Industry Reaping Major Dividends from Investment in BIM(01/2015)

U.S. Geological Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing Need More Study, Research(10/2014)

Green Energy Project Development Shows Steady Utility Increase in U.S.(01/2014)

Oil Shale Garnering More Industry Attention, But Still Has Obstacles(01/2013)

Overhaul of U.S. Patent System Creates Better Path for Innovation(03/2012)

Mt. Rushmore: A Technically Skilled, Creative Release for a Restless Soul(10/1997)

Some Factual Perspectives on theFuture, Viability of the U.S. Coal Industry

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

ONE of the more contentious, andyet inviting, issues of the 2016 politi-cal campaign last fall was the impend-ing revitalization (or demise) of theU.S. coal mining industry, particularlythat of the Appalachian region in statessuch as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, andWest Virginia. The political rhetoricwas quite polarizing. On one end ofthe campaign spectrum was DonaldTrump’s vow to bring back coal min-ing jobs and expand current domesticenergy development; on the other end,Hillary Clinton was on record forwanting to end coal mining and replaceit with workforce retraining, favoringcleaner energy alternatives and ex-tending the Obama administration’sdirectives in curbing electricity gen-eration via coal-fired power plants.

The U.S. Energy Information Ad-ministration estimates that coal pro-duction declined 18 percent in 2016,the lowest level of coal produced since1978. EIA’s forecast this year, how-ever, calls for modest growth in coal-fired electricity generation, which isexpected to lead to a seven percentincrease in U.S. coal production.

Actually, the forecast may be betterthan projected. As of mid-January,EIA’s reported production estimatewas 14.1 percent higher than the firstweek of 2017, and 13.4 percent higherthan the production estimate in thecomparable week of last year. Anotherhopeful sign is that year-to-date coalproduction is 9.2 percent higher thanthe comparable year-to-date produc-tion figure in 2016.

On a related front, coal consump-tion in the electric power industry,

which accounts for more than 90 per-cent of the total U.S. coal market, isestimated by EIA to have declined byeight percent last year, mostly attrib-uted to competition with low-pricednatural gas, the fracking boom, andreduced overall electricity demanddue to relatively mild weather condi-tions.

Other commonly cited reasons forthe downturn include declining inter-national coal demand, legal challengesfrom environmental advocacy groups,and sweeping environmental regula-tions under the Obama administrationmaking it more difficult for utilitiesto justify further capital expendituresin coal-fired plants.

However, because of recent risingnatural gas prices and increasing elec-tricity generation, coal consumptionin the power sector is forecasted toincrease by six percent in 2017. A re-verse of this trend, though, is expectedin 2018, leading to a small one per-cent decline in coal consumption bythe power industry. EIA also estimatesthat the delivered coal price last yearaveraged four percent lower than in2015, but that coal prices are pro-jected to modestly increase both thisyear and in 2018.

Of course, it should be pointed outthat any significant resurgence of thecoal mining industry will tend to moreheavily favor the Western and Interiorcoal regions first, followed by the Ap-palachian states, based on current coalproduction and consumption figures.Total coal production in 2018 is ex-pected to increase only slightly, accord-ing to EIA projections, with the West-ern region showing the most gain, off-set by small declines in the Interior andAppalachian regions.

Still, any improvement in coal min-ing nationwide would have a residualpositive effect on the Appalachian re-gion, albeit to a lesser degree. Westerncoal is generally lower in sulfur contentand otherwise cleaner-burning than coalfrom Appalachian mines, making it a de-sirable choice for power companies op-erating under stringent Clean Air Actregulations.

Five states account for about 70 per-cent of total U.S. coal production:Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky,Pennsylvania, and Illinois. The NorthAntelope Rochelle and Black Thundermines in Wyoming each yield aboutas much coal as West Virginia, thesecond-largest coal-producing state.In 2014, Wyoming produced 73 per-cent of the coal mined in the Westerncoal region. In fact, eight of the top10 producing coal mines in the UnitedStates are located in Wyoming. Illi-nois, the largest coal producer in theInterior coal region, accounts for morethan 30 percent of the region’s coalproduction and six percent of totalU.S. coal production. Undergroundmines supply the majority (more than70 percent) of the coal produced inthe Appalachian region, whereas sur-face mining produces about 90 per-cent of the coal in the Western regionand is considered more efficient.

The Daily Caller news service reportsthat market changes are contributing tothe recent rise in coal prices, with glo-bal coal prices more than doubling overthe past 12 months. For instance, theprice of coal in Australia and China hassoared by 150 percent from November2015 to November of last year, accord-ing to Bloomberg news sources.

The Caller’s energy and science re-porter, Andrew Follett, contends that

such massive price fluctuations are dueto regulatory changes in the Chinesesteel industry and increased demand inIndia, which caused coal prices to riseby 20 percent in a single week last Sep-tember. He notes that rapidly rising coalprices have prompted companies to in-vest $90 million into a pair of new coalmines in Virginia and West Virginia, cre-ating about 400 jobs in counties whereunemployment is almost three times thenational average.

From a different perspective, JasonHayes, associate director of the Ameri-can Coal Council, says “the industry’sdownturn is bigger and more unusualthan previous ones,” but he expects coalto make a comeback as prices for natu-ral gas inevitably start to rise, accordingto a Casa Grande Dispatch article“Coal Expected to Make a Comeback.”

As reprinted online by CoalZoom.com,Hayes, a Casa Grande, Arizona residentand editor-in-chief of American Coalmagazine, attributes coal’s current de-cline to market pressures from the ef-fects of lower energy demand — a trendobserved since the Great Recession.“People aren’t using things the way theydid before,” he says. “They’re saving in-stead of buying.”

Another factor hindering the growthin coal, Hayes points out in the Dis-patch article, are regulations that makeit difficult for facilities to stay com-pliant with the government’s expecta-tions. “There is definitely reason to beconcerned in the sense of how the in-dustry is being treated by the federalgovernment,” he emphasizes.

The Dispatch further notes that theU.S. Supreme Court is reviewing rules

set by the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, requiring all states to sub-mit new carbon-reducing plans thatmeet rate-based goals by 2030. Twenty-nine states, many of which are depen-dent on the coal industry, have ralliedtogether to legally challenge the EPArules.

Finally, Hayes comments that coalcompanies in bankruptcy court doesnot indicate a complete shutdown ofthe industry, as companies will con-tinue operating despite the highercosts it takes to extract and delivercoal. “It is not unusual given the cur-rent state of our markets right now,”he says. “It’s also not the end of theworld.”

January 2017

Coastal Restoration, ProtectionProjects Help Reduce Disaster Losses

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

LAST year’s flooding and storm-bat-tering of several Southern and East-ern seaboard states serves as a re-minder of how fragile coastal and rivershoreline ecosystems can be duringextreme weather conditions. Naturaldisasters, though, can also serve as vi-able proving grounds for the construc-tion challenges of shoreline restora-tion and erosion mitigation.

At $17 billion, the total flood loss in2016 was six times greater than the over-all flood damage experienced in 2015,according to CoreLogic, Inc., propertyinformation analysts based in Irvine, Ca-lif. Five major events in 2016 shared thebulk of that devastation: the Louisianaflood in August; Hurricane Matthew inOctober; the Sabine River Basin floodin East Texas and Louisiana in March;the Houston flood in April; and WestVirginia’s flash and riverine flooding inJune.

CoreLogic further states that overallhurricane activity in the Atlantic coastalregion was slightly higher than averagein 2016, with 15 named storms, includ-ing eight tropical storms and seven hur-ricanes. Three of the latter were majorhurricanes identified as Category 3 orgreater.

ConstructionDive.com notes that theresidential construction market has con-tinually researched and developed meth-ods to mitigate the impact of severeweather and natural disasters. For in-stance in December, researchers at theMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyConcrete Sustainability Hub showcasedan estimating tool for developers thathelps in determining initial investmentswhen designing structures to be more

resilient and to lower the risk of futurenatural disaster damage. Another mea-sure aimed at reducing the risk ofweather-related damage includes a planannounced last summer by the U.S. Fed-eral Emergency Management Agency. Itproposes that most federally fundedconstruction projects be constructedtwo feet above a 100-year floodplain inthe wake of flooding damage from hur-ricanes Katrina and Sandy in 2005 and2012, respectively.

In a regional resource report issuedby the Southern Legislative Conferenceof the Council of State Governments,SLC policy analyst Anne Roberts pointsout that since the throes of HurricaneKatrina, much attention has focused onthe rehabilitation of the area’s homes,businesses, and infrastructure, but lessattention has been directed toward thereconstruction of the coastlines of Ala-bama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

“In order to maintain a sustainable GulfCoast, investments in sound redevelop-ment and restoration practices, balanc-ing the critical natural resources of theGulf Coast with the equally vital eco-nomic drivers in the region, are criticalto full recovery and necessary to weak-ening future natural disasters,” she con-tends. The report, SLC State Efforts toRebuild the Coastline, highlights recentprojects undertaken by southern statesto rebuild their coastlines, specificallythe communities of Dauphin Island, Ala-bama; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and themetropolitan area of New Orleans.

Roberts says that although leveesand structural protections are impor-tant components of mitigating damagefrom hurricanes and floods, they aremost effective when coupled withnatural forms of mitigation. In thewake of Hurricane Katrina, many

coastal communities have turned tocoastal and wetland restoration as anadditional mitigation measure, sheadds.

“Though Alabama, Mississippi, andLouisiana are Gulf Coast neighbors withsimilar resources, they have prioritizeddifferent forms of economic develop-ment and have divergent hurricane miti-gation approaches,” Roberts explains.Louisiana and, specifically, the NewOrleans metropolitan area, has long re-lied on a series of levees for protectionfrom river- and hurricane-related floods,she says, whereas Alabama and Missis-sippi have emphasized structural pro-tection, such as seawalls and elevatedbuildings, that do not impede ocean-front access.

For example, in Alabama, buildingcodes require beachfront structures tobe built high on pilings. Hurricane miti-gation trends also include installing hardstructures, such as bulkheads, seawalls,or “rip-rap” on the shoreline to protectwaterfront property from erosion andstorm surge. Rip-rap is simply a foun-dation or sustaining wall of stones orchunks of concrete amassed withoutorder. In Mississippi, Roberts notes, ex-periences with storms prior to Hurri-cane Katrina have resulted in modifica-tions to building codes and land usespecifications, including the early cre-ation of a 26-mile, 10-foot-high seawalldesigned to act as a storm barrier.

Spearheading restoration and pro-tection projects in Louisiana is theCoastal Protection and RestorationAuthority, which has identified spe-cific projects that address the rootcauses of land loss. Since 2007, thestate has increased its financial com-mitment to the coastline, yielding sub-stantial progress. CPRA has built or

improved about 250 miles of levees— benefitting more than 25,700 acresof coastal habitat — and secured $18billion in state and federal funding forprotection and restoration projects.Also noteworthy, the agency hasmoved more than 150 projects intodesign and construction, constructedprojects in 20 parishes, and construct-ed 45 miles of barrier islands andberms.

CPRA’s targeted projects encom-pass bank stabilization, barrier island/headland restoration, channel realign-ment, waterway diversions, hydrologicrestoration, marsh creation, oysterbarrier reefs, ridge restoration, andshoreline protection. The latter com-prises near-shore rock breakwaters toreduce wave energies on shorelines inopen bays, lakes, sounds, and bayous,in addition to project work on navi-

gation channels. CPRA’s protectionprojects utilize concrete walls, earthenlevees (both linear and circular in de-sign), floodgates, and pumps for en-closed-risk reduction systems.

The agency also addresses structuralresiliency as an essential part of coastalrestoration and protection, focusing pri-marily on the options of elevation andflood-proofing. The elevation optioninvolves raising residential structures sothat their lowest floors are higher thanprojected flood depths, ranging fromthree feet to 14 feet. The other optionrefits structures so they can be resistantto flood damages; commercial flood-proofing has been considered for areaswith projected flood depths of three feetor less.

NOLA.com and The Times-Picayunereport that Louisiana could spend $663million on coastal restoration and levee

projects in fiscal year 2018, with 56percent of the money used for construc-tion, according to a draft annual planunder consideration by CPRA. The pro-posal would also create 800 squaremiles of additional coastal wetlands overa 50-year period. CPRA’s annual planacts as the budget for the state’s masterplan for coastal restoration and hurri-cane storm surge protection, both ofwhich will be subject to public hearingsacross Louisiana.

January 2017

Lead Contamination of Drinking WaterExtends Well Beyond Michgan’s Woes

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

IN LIGHT of the lead-in-water cri-sis that pervaded Flint, Mich. earlierthis year, should other municipalitiesbe concerned about possible leadcontamination of their drinking wa-ter? Although the Flint controversycontinues to dominate many newsheadlines, the Natural Resources De-fense Council reports that lead con-tamination in other community wa-ter systems could be more prevalentthan originally thought because manywater systems are not flagged as hav-ing lead violations in the governmentdatabase, which was designed to trackand document such problems.

Research by NRDC scientists andhealth experts indicates that morethan 5,300 community water systemsserving 18 million Americans in 2015violated federal lead and copper regu-lations issued by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency. The vio-lations included failure to mitigatelead levels, failure to monitor for lead,and failure to report test results to thepublic or government officials.

The NRDC report What’s In YourWater: Flint and Beyond notes thatnot every person served by these sys-tems is known to have excessive leadin their water because only a smallpercentage of homes were tested andlead levels can vary from home tohome. However, industry estimatesclaim that 15 million to 22 millionAmericans receive their drinking wa-ter delivered through lead service linesthat can release lead into tap water.

One of the prominent researcherswho played a major role in exposingthe lead-in-water crises in Flint last

year and in Washington, D.C. in theearly 2000s is Marc Edwards, Ph.D.,a professor of civil and environmen-tal engineering at Virginia Tech. Morethan a decade ago, the WashingtonPost published a series of articlesdocumenting the extent of the leadproblem in the nation’s capital anddetailing how it had been ignored.

Edwards, while studying prematurepipe corrosion for the District of Co-lumbia Water and Sewer Authority,determined that lead levels were atleast 83 times higher than the ac-cepted safe limit. His research citedthe change from chlorine to chloram-ine as a water treatment chemical asthe cause for the spike in lead levels.Regarding Flint’s lead-contaminationproblem, Edwards says corrosive wa-ter basically “ate up every metallicpipe” in the water-delivery system,with plastic pipe being the only ma-terial immune to such corrosive ele-ments.

Erik Olson, NRDC’s health pro-gram director, contends, “Shoddydata collection, lax enforcement ofthe law, and cities gaming the systemhave created a potent brew of leadviolations and unsafe drinking waterfrom the water supplies used by mil-lions of people across the nation.”Moreover, he adds, nine out of 10 ofthese water rule violations never facedany formal enforcement and, in fact,states and EPA authorities sought pen-alties against only three percent oflead rule violators.

Not surprising, Olsen says the EPA’sdrinking water tracking data show norecord of Flint as having violationsfor lead, suggesting that millionsmore Americans could be at risk ofdrinking unsafe water. NRDC sources

further point out that EPA audits havecontinually found that many drinkingwater violations do not show up in itsdatabase.

Another issue highlighted by theNRDC peer-reviewed report is thatwater systems can use questionabletesting methods to avoid detectinglead problems. In cities like Flint,Chicago, and Philadelphia, where lo-calized lead spikes may put the pub-lic at risk, officials allegedly have“gamed” water testing in ways that mayobscure lead contamination.

For example, systems can monitorin locations less likely to have leadproblems rather than in the highest riskhomes or can use water samplingmethods that minimize the chance offinding higher levels of lead. Afteryears of complaints about these ques-tionable techniques, the EPA issueda guidance document last Februarydiscouraging these methods.

For instance, a recent August NewYork Times article reports that a reviewof how water testing was conductedat more than 1,500 city school build-ings suggests that the amount of leadin the water consumed by studentscould be greater than the results in-dicate because of a testing practiceknown as “pre-stagnation flushing.”This practice, which called for everywater outlet in each school to beturned on fully for two hours the nightbefore the samples were taken, cleansmost soluble lead and lead particlesfrom pipes, thus reducing lead levelstemporarily.

However, the EPA’s new guidancedocument recommends not using pre-stagnation flushing when samplingwater in homes, stating that the step“may potentially lower the lead lev-

els as compared to when it is not prac-ticed.”

The Times article further notes thatbecause the EPA does not regulate thetesting of water in schools, its guid-ance on pre-stagnation flushing doesnot apply directly to New York’s pro-cedures. Still, the agency’s voluntaryguidelines for schools do not recom-mend such flushing and generallydirect schools to mimic normal con-sumption patterns when taking samp-les.

An August Chicago Tribune ar-ticle also backs up the premise thatthe testing methods for lead in drink-ing water “could significantly under-estimate consumers’ exposure to thetoxic metal,” as high lead levels werefound in drinking water in seven of38 Chicago homes tested by federalregulators this past spring. EPA offi-cials are still analyzing the results, butthere is concern, the Tribune pointsout, particularly in older cities andsuburbs where lead pipe and solder arecommon.

Under federal law, local utilitiesmust test water in a relatively smallsample of homes. If lead concentra-tions exceed 15 parts per billion inmore than 10 percent of the sampling,the utilities must alert residents andtry to lower levels. The city of Chicagohas not exceeded the lead limit in nearly20 years, according to the Tribune.The allowable amount of lead wasestablished in the 1990s, based on alevel that utilities could feasiblymonitor and treat. However, it is not ahealth-based standard, and many healthand environment experts believe thelevel allowed is too high.

Not all municipalities or states areplaying defense, though. The GreaterCincinnati Water Works, in light ofrecent lead contamination findings inOhio and nearby states, is assuring itscustomers that providing and main-taining safe drinking water is the No.1 priority.

GCWW’s Ohio River treatmentplant in California, Ohio, uses sandfiltration, granular activated carbon,

powdered activated carbon, and ultra-violet light to remove and treat fornatural and man-made contaminantsin drinking water. The facility is oneof the first in the nation to use a com-bination of all four treatment meth-ods. As an additional safeguard, theagency deploys a specific lead cor-rosion control treatment process tominimize the amount of lead that mayleach into the drinking water throughhome plumbing.

And back in April, the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources an-nounced that it will target low-in-come areas statewide with $11.8 mil-lion in new grants to replace agingpipes made of lead that supply waterto homes. It is estimated that at least176,000 homes and businesses inWisconsin receive water from leadservice lines, with about 70,000 ofthose lines in Milwaukee alone.

October 2016

New Federal Policy Preps U.S. IndustryFor Production of Automated Vehicles

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

IN A MOVE largely anticipated bythe U.S. automotive industry, the fed-eral government recently issued anew policy for automated vehicles,laying the groundwork for their test-ing and future deployment. The Fed-eral Automated Vehicle Policy, re-leased in September by the U.S. De-partment of Transportation, sets a pro-active approach toward providingsafety assurance and facilitating inno-vation in several ways.

For instance, the new DOT vehicleperformance guidance uses a 15-pointsafety assessment to set clear expec-tations for manufacturers developingand deploying automated vehicletechnologies. Also included is a modelstate policy section delineating fed-eral and state roles in regulating highlyautomated vehicle technologies aimedat building a consistent framework oflaws to govern self-driving vehicles.

Finally, the policy outlines optionsregarding the use of current federalauthorities to expedite the safe intro-duction of highly automated vehiclesinto the marketplace and discussesnew tools that may be necessary asthe technology evolves and is de-ployed more widely.

A recent study by the John A. VolpeNational Transportation SystemsCenter notes that current FederalMotor Vehicle Safety Standards do notdirectly address automated vehicletechnologies and often assume thepresence of a human driver. Tra-ditionally, those standards can takeyears to develop and are usually imple-mented after the new technologieshave made significant market impact.

More importantly, existing FMVSSlanguage could create certificationchallenges for automated vehiclemanufacturers choosing to pursuecertain vehicle concepts. The newpolicy, though, envisions greater trans-parency as DOT works with manu-facturers to ensure that safety is ap-propriately addressed on the front-endof development.

Overall, the Volpe study reveals thatthere are few barriers for automatedvehicles to comply with FMVSS, as longas the vehicle does not significantlydiverge from a conventional vehicledesign. However, standards for theftprotection, roll-away prevention, andlight vehicle braking systems wereidentified as having potential issues forautomated vehicles with conventionaldesigns.

“Ninety-four percent of crashes onU.S. roadways are caused by a humanchoice or error,” says Mark Rosekind,administrator of the National HighwayTransportation Safety Administration.“We are moving forward on the safedeployment of automated technolo-gies because of the enormous prom-ise they hold to address the over-whelming majority of crashes andsave lives.”

The NHTSA administrator’s re-marks come in the wake of the Maycrash of a Tesla Model S on a divid-ed highway in Williston, Fla., nearGainesville. The driver, Joshua Brown,40, a technology entrepreneur fromCanton, Ohio, was using Tesla’s sig-nature Autopilot system at the time ofcrashing into the side of a tractor-trailer. The vehicle’s camera systemfailed to distinguish between a brightsky and a white tractor-trailer and, con-sequently, failed to automatically ac-

tivate the braking system. The Tesla ac-cident is the first U.S. fatality in awreck involving a car in self-drivingmode.

Transportation Secretary AnthonyFoxx points out, “Public input has beenessential to getting this right. Therehas been a strong call from state andlocal governments, industry, safetyexperts, mobility advocates, and aver-age Americans to establish a clearpolicy for the deployment of auto-mated vehicles on our roads.” He fur-ther adds, “There are huge upsides andsignificant challenges that come withautomated vehicle technology, and wewill continue the conversation with thepublic over the coming months andyears as this technology develops.”

Although the primary focus ofDOT’s new policy is on highly auto-mated vehicles, those vehicles that cantake full control of the driving task inat least some circumstances are ad-dressed, too. There are also portionsof the policy that apply to lower lev-els of automation, including some ofthe driver-assistance systems alreadybeing deployed by automakers today.

Simultaneously with the Federal Au-tomated Vehicle Policy, NHTSA isreleasing a final enforcement guidancebulletin clarifying how its recall au-thority will also apply to automatedvehicle technologies. Specifically, theagency emphasizes that semi-autono-mous driving systems that fail to ad-equately account for the possibilitythat a distracted or inattentive driver-occupant might fail to retake controlof the vehicle in a critical situationmay be defined as an unreasonable riskto safety and subject to recall.

In a statement following Brown’sdeath, Tesla stressed both the impor-

tance and uncertainty regarding itsnew Autopilot system, emphasizingthat drivers still have to manually en-able it. According to Tesla’s state-ment, Autopilot is an “assist feature”requiring a driver to keep both handson the wheel at all time. Drivers aretold they need to “maintain control andresponsibility” for their vehicles whileusing the system, and they have to beprepared to take over at any time.

The Associated Press reports thatautomatic braking systems have mal-functioned in other vehicles, too, andseveral have been recalled to correctproblems. Last fall, Ford recalledabout 37,000 F-150 pickups becausethey braked with nothing in the way.The company stated that the radar sys-tem could become confused whenpassing a large, reflective truck.

Industry analysts point out thatwarning technologies rely heavily on

multiple cameras, radar, lasers, andcomputers to sense objects and deter-mine if they are in the vehicle’s way.Unfortunately, these systems are notyet sophisticated enough to overcomedeficiencies such as subtle colorvariations or blindness from bright orlow-contrast light.

One of the more overlooked iro-nies during the evolution of self-driv-ing vehicles is the fact that last year,the 2015 American Customer Satis-faction Index found that satisfactionwith automobiles dropped for thethird straight year (nearly four per-cent) to the lowest level since 2004.Automakers recalled a record 64 mil-lion vehicles for problems such asexploding air bags and ignition swit-ches that can unexpectedly cause en-gines to stall — all problems that canlead to fatalities. Fortunately, thisyear’s survey shows a 3.8 percent re-

bound in customer satisfaction, upfrom 79 to 82 out of ASCI’s scale of0 to 100.

Mass-market vehicles have madeconsiderable headway in 2016, ac-cording to ASCI data, and while driv-ers report that their quality has im-proved, lower prices have also contrib-uted to the rise in buyer satisfaction.Incentives increased by 13 percentduring the first two quarters of 2016,more than offsetting impacts fromrecalls. ACSI data also indicate thatnearly the same percentage of surveyrespondents reported recalls this yearas in 2015, yet overall customer sat-isfaction with the auto industry is up.

October 2016

U.S. Nuclear Power Generation MakesA Return After a Two-Decade HiatusBy Steven J. Storts

Dublin, OhioEVERY now and then, an eventcomes along in the power industry thatbears repeating and further examina-tion. That event is the first nuclear re-actor to go online in the United Statesin two decades. The Tennessee ValleyAuthority’s Watts Bar Unit 2, whichachieved its first sustained nuclear fis-sion reaction in late spring, recentlyconnected to the national electricalgrid in June. Commercial operationsare expected to be at full capacity laterthis summer.

The reactor is currently operatingin a stable condition at low-power lev-els. With the plant systems and con-trols under continual monitoring,power levels will be slowly increasedup to 100 percent as part of sched-uled power ascension testing. TVA willrepeat these tests multiple times toensure the entire system operatessafely as designed. Once all tests havebeen completed successfully, Unit 2will provide a sustained 1,150 mega-watts of lower-cost, carbon-free elec-tricity to the Tennessee Valley.

“This is another major step in fullyintegrating Watts Bar Unit 2 as theseventh operating unit in TVA’snuclear fleet,” says TVA Chief NuclearOfficer Joe Grimes. “It is rewardingto see TVA taking the lead on deliver-ing the first new nuclear unit of the21st century and providing safe, af-fordable, and reliable electricity tothose we serve.” The key word is “safe,”as Unit 2 is the first to meet newsafety regulations implemented afterthe formidable meltdown of the Fuk-ushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japanin 2011.

Like its sister, Watts Bar Unit 1, thenation’s former newest reactor thatcame online in 1996, Unit 2, produceselectricity using controlled nuclearfission to generate heat, which is thenused to produce steam to turn turbinesand a single large generator. Combinedwith Unit 1, the plant will eventuallysupply 2,300 megawatts of electricpower to about 1.3 million homes inthe TVA service area.

The Watts Bar plant is located on1,700 acres on the northern end of theChickamauga Reservoir near SpringCity in eastern Tennessee. Watts Baronce held the distinction of being theonly U.S. power installation to gener-ate electricity using hydroelectricpower, fossil fuel (retired), and nucleartechnology.

Although often termed a “new” re-actor facility, Watts Bar is actually oneof the longest construction projectsin U.S. history, spanning more thanfour decades. Construction of the nu-clear generating plant began in 1973,six years after TVA announced its am-bitious plan for 17 new nuclear reac-tors in Alabama, Mississippi, and Ten-nessee. However, economic issues inthe 1980s and high construction costscaused TVA to drop almost half ofthose projects. Nevertheless, con-struction on Watts Bar continued at aslow pace, delayed by regulatory is-sues, until Unit 1 was finally com-pleted, licensed, and operational in1996.

Unit 2 also incurred constructionand regulatory delays, including costoverruns, until construction finally re-sumed on the Westinghouse pressur-ized water rector in 2007 after yearsof the project being mothballed. TheU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) issued an operating license forUnit 2 last October.

On the cost side, Unit 2’s comple-tion budget rose to $4.7 billion, higherthan expected but still below the pro-jected expense of reactors being builtat TVA’s Vogtle plant facility in Waynes-boro, Ga., which are currently slatedto top $10 billion. The additional costsfor Unit 2 were attributed in part todelays in completion, extra flood con-trols, and emergency equipment re-quired to prevent nuclear accidentslike those at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

On a lighter note, there has alwaysbeen some mystique surrounding theWatts Bar namesake, for which thereare two competing theories. The areasurrounding Watts Bar was inhabitedby the Cherokee, Creek, and ChoctawNative American tribes during the late18th century. The first theory emanatesfrom some of the descendants ofMeigs County’s original settlers, whoclaim that the area was named from aNative American named Wattsi andthat the Watts Creek was formerlyknown as Wattsi Creek.

The second theory derives from his-torical records showing that the terri-tory surrounding Watts Bar during thelatter part of the 18th century belongedto John Watts, a Choctaw chief, fa-mous for his ability as a warrior andleader. No direct connection has beenfound linking his name with Watts Bar,thus leaving open another speculativetheory.

Regarding safety concerns, WattsBarr is not without some controversy,according to the Chattanooga TimesFree Press. Plant employees have al-leged more safety problems alreadythis year than at any other nuclearpower plant in the country, the NRC

reports, bringing the total to nearly 55complaints made to regulators duringthe past three years. Only the MillstoneNuclear Power Station, the largestpower plant in Connecticut, has loggedmore safety complaints from its em-ployees since 2012.

However, NRC sources note that theseriousness of allegations is moreimportant than the quantity, “so justadding up the number may not indi-cate how serious a problem there mayor may not be.” The NRC further addsthat when more workers are at a nu-clear plant, as they have been duringfinal construction of the Unit 2 reac-tor at Watts Bar, there are often moreconcerns voiced by employees.

Still, the Free Press points out thatregulators have concluded that TVA hasa problem with employee safety con-cerns and the way they are beinghandled at the Watts Bar twin-reactor

facility. More importantly, NRC hasdetermined that a “chilled work envi-ronment” exists within the operationsstaff at the Watts Bar plant, wheresome employees may not have feltfree to raise safety concerns, andsome licensed operators may havebeen unduly influenced and directedby sources external to the controlroom.

TVA spokesman Jim Hopson saysthe utility takes NRC’s determination“very seriously” and is working to re-spond to employee concerns whiletrying to improve the plant’s work en-vironment. “We have a robust em-ployee concerns program and continueto actively encores employees to raiseconcerns, including reporting them tothe NRC,” he emphasizes.

In terms of external safety, industrysources note that Watts Bar has beendesigned and constructed to withstand

earthquakes, any huge dam failures,hurling objects from tornados, andeven airplane crashes. The two cool-ing towers are 506 feet high with a basediameter of 405 feet and a water flowrate of 410,000 gallons per minute.Primary containment has an insideheight of 197 feet and an inside diam-eter of 115 feet. The reactor vessel isalmost 44 feet high with an inside di-ameter of 14 feet and steel thicknessof more than nine inches. The reactorcore holds 193 fuel assemblies, eachcontaining 264 fuel rods.

July 2016

Industrial Modernization En RouteWith Additive Manufacturing Processes

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

THE buzz regarding additive manu-facturing — often referred to as 3-Dprinting, rapid prototyping, or directdigital manufacturing — is an inter-esting phenomenon to say the least.However, AM technologies are cer-tainly not new by today’s standards,having been extensively research anddeveloped for commercial use in the1980s. Perhaps what is more revolu-tionary (or evolutionary) is the widerange of AM applications coming tofruition.

Thought improbable just a few de-cades ago, additive manufacturing isnow fabricating products for use inaircraft, dental restorations, medicalimplants, automobiles, and the fash-ion industry. Foreseeable projectscould benefit the construction indus-try in support structures as well asindustrial machine fabrication andopen the doors for basic consumersto create, customize, or repair theirown personal products.

In its most basic form, AM is de-scribed by California-based Amaz-ing AM, the online publisher of Addi-tiveManufacturing.com, as a seriesof technologies that builds 3-D ob-jects by adding layer-upon-layer ofmaterial, whether the material is plas-tic, metal, ceramic, concrete, or per-haps one day, human tissue aimed atproducing human organs.

For example, instead of milling aworkpiece from a solid block, usinga more traditional machining process,AM builds up components layer-by-layer using available materials. Asits key advantages, additive manu-facturing allows for quality fabrica-

tion of parts with very complex ge-ometries, all without tooling, fixtures,and producing any waste material.

Common to all AM technologies isthe use of computers, 3-D modelingor computer-aided design software,machine equipment, and layering ma-terial. Once a CAD schematic is pro-duced, the AM equipment reads in datafrom the CAD file and lays downs oradds successive layers of liquid, pow-der, sheet material or other compos-ites, in a layer-upon-layer fashion, fab-ricating a 3-D object. Depending onthe material used, components can bemanufactured using stereolithography,laser sintering, or 3-D printing.

Amazing AM notes that althoughthe layer-upon-layer approach issomewhat simplistic in nature, thereare numerous degrees of sophistica-tion that exist within AM technologyapplications to meet a wide range ofneeds. Some of these include visu-alizing a tool in design or industrialtooling, creating highly customizedproducts for both consumers andprofessionals, and producing smalllots of production parts.

The benefits of AM applicationsare also numerous: reduced weightsfor new designs; mass customizationof new delivery models; cost savingson custom tooling; reduced assem-bly steps and improved quality con-trol; reduced inventory due to on-de-mand production; and faster deliv-ery times to market.

Well-known industry consultantand analyst Terry Wohlers of Den-ver, Colo., who keynotes numerousevents for the Society of Manufac-turing Engineers and other organi-zations worldwide, states in one ofhis reports, “Additive manufacturing

technologies create a world of pos-sibilities that can take an organiza-tion in an entirely new direction andhelp launch new businesses and bus-iness models. 3-D printing and 3-Dimaging are causing design and man-ufacturing professionals to rethinktheir approach to new product devel-opment.”

Manufacturing engineers are alsoextending their design capabilitiesas advancements in AM technologiesoffer more complexities, geometricshapes, and features. “Low-cost 3-D printers are affecting both the pro-fessional and consumer markets,”Wohlers says. “The increased sale ofthese machines over the past fewyears has taken additive manufactur-ing mainstream more than any othersingle development. As new additivemanufacturing systems and materi-als become more widely adopted, Iexpect to see new designs that pre-viously would have been very diffi-cult or too expensive to manufac-ture.”

One of the more innovative appli-cations of AM technologies is cur-rently underway at General ElectricAviation in Cincinnati, Ohio. Makinga radical departure from its traditionalmanufacturing platform, GE is produc-ing a fuel nozzle for a new aircraft en-gine by 3-D printing the part with la-sers, rather than casting and weldingthe metal. GE chose the additive pro-cess for the project because it usesless material than conventional tech-niques, thereby reducing productioncosts and yielding significant fuelsavings because of the lighter ma-terial weight.

The initial challenge for GE wasto eliminate as many unknowns as

possible, starting with the material.“When we designed the nozzle, wewanted to make it from an alloy thatwas mature, well-known and thor-oughly tested, nothing exotic,” saysTodd Rockstroh, a GE laser process-ing expert.

Rockstroh and his team settled oncobalt-chromium alloys, which havebeen used for decades for humanjoint replacements and dental im-plants. Light, tough, and corrosion-resistant, these alloys can operate intemperatures as high as 1,800 de-grees Fahrenheit and are relativelyinexpensive. Because the AM pro-cess requires powdered metal, spe-cialty smelters are being deployedthat can turn molten alloys into pow-der through gas atomization, me-chanical milling, spray forming, andother advanced methods.

A computer file of the digitizeddrawing of the nozzle guides the 3-D printer’s high-powered fiber op-

tic laser across the powder bed,much like a painter moves a brushacross the canvas. The laser thenfuses successive layers of powder —each 20 microns thick — to the de-sired shape. The end result is a fuelnozzle that is 25 percent lighter andas much as five times more durablethan the current nozzle made from20 different smaller parts weldedtogether.

Although AM technologies aretrending upward in manufacturing, sur-prisingly, many companies are still un-aware of additive manufacturing’s pro-jected potential over the next decade,according to the New York-based man-agement consulting firm McKinsey &Company. A McKinsey survey of lead-ing manufacturers earlier this yearshowed that 40 percent of the respon-dents were unfamiliar with AM tech-nology “beyond press coverage.” Anadditional 12 percent indicated that 3-D printing might be relevant but more

information is needed to make a de-termination.

Many companies in the McKinseysurvey also admitted they were ill-pre-pared to undertake a cross-organiza-tional effort to identify the opportuni-ties. In fact, two-thirds of respondentssaid their companies lacked a formal,systematic way to catalog and priori-tize emerging technologies in general.

Nevertheless, 10 percent of thoseexecutives surveyed consider AMtechnologies “highly relevant.”They see 3-D printing’s ability toincrease geometric complexity andreduce time to market as the keybusiness benefits, closely followedby reduced tooling and assemblycosts and reduced inventories ofspare parts.

April 2015

Construction Industry Reaping MajorDividends from Investment in BIM

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

THERE is little doubt that the Digi-tal Age is carving its brand on theconstruction industry, particularly inthe area of building informationmodeling. And why not? For thoseorganizations taking advantage ofwhat BIM brings to the project table,the future may be brighter.

In a study released last year byMcGraw Hill Construction, contrac-tors in nine of the world’s top con-struction markets using BIM re-ported that digital modeling helpsthem to improve productivity, effi-ciency, quality, and safety on theirprojects, in addition to boosting theirown competitiveness. The BusinessValue of BIM for Construction inMajor Global Markets reveals thatbusinesses in markets with well-established BIM use — includingCanada, France, Germany, theUnited Kingdom, and the UnitedStates — are seeing a positive returnon their technology investments.

Moreover, the study notes thatconstruction markets that are still inthe initial stages of BIM adoption —Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Ja-pan, and South Korea, for example —are experiencing benefits, too, suchas reduced errors and omissions, im-proved collaboration among projectteam members, and an enhanced or-ganizational image.

Through digital information net-working and management in a teamenvironment, BIM creates measure-able value by combining the effortsof project stakeholders, process, andtechnology. Essentially, BIM is aclearinghouse for every component

of the built structure, making it pos-sible for any project team memberto access information for any pur-pose. The process integrates differ-ent aspects of the project design moreeffectively, reducing the potentialrisk for mistakes, discrepancies, orconflicts during the delivery process.As its core advantage, BIM data canbe used to illustrate a building’s en-tire life-cycle from inception and de-sign to demolition and materials re-use. Spaces, systems, products, andsequences can be exhibited and com-pared in relative scale to each otherand, in turn, relative to the entireproject.

The McGraw Hill study demon-strates that businesses deployingBIM achieve more benefits and re-alize a stronger return on their tech-nology investment than those lessengaged. Half of those organizationshighly engaged in BIM report re-turns in excess of 25 percent on theirtechnology investment. Much of thatreturn on investment is due to sig-nificantly reduced rework on proj-ects. The study results also forecastexponential growth in BIM use in thenear future. Over the next two years,contractors expect the percentage oftheir work involving BIM to increaseby 50 percent on average.

In a separate analysis, Massachu-setts-based Fast Market ResearchInc., an online aggregator and dis-tributor of market research and busi-ness information, forecasts the BIMmarket to grow from $2,640.12 mil-lion in 2013 to $8,646.47 million by2020 at a compound annual growthrate of 16.72 percent. FMR pointsout that newer applications and usesare continuously being devised for

this technology, which will furtherpropel the market in the coming fiveyears, with much of the expectedgrowth due to the expanding indus-trial sector for the BIM market.

“As greater industry demands un-fold, BIM is emerging as a vital pro-cess to promote efficiency and lean-er operations throughout a construc-tion project’s life-cycle,” says LisaCampbell, vice president of indus-try strategy and marketing at Auto-desk, the McGraw Hill study’s pre-mier partner. She further notes thatconstruction organizations with veryhigh BIM engagement levels areheavily investing in mobile devices,demonstrating that BIM’s future forcontractor use lies in getting it morewidely used in the field.

Additionally, the study demonstratesthe broad range of BIM use globally,including how use varies by specificmarkets. For example, while 82 per-cent of U.S. contractors use BIM formultitrade coordination, leading theglobal market in this area, Braziliancontractors notably lag in this area, withonly 25 percent using BIM for the pur-pose. On the other hand, contractorsfrom Brazil lead in the integration of4-D scheduling, a practice only usedby 21 percent of U.S. firms. Aside fromthe project construction phase, BIMis gaining attention in the precon-struction and postconstruction phases.One emerging area is project manage-ment for the owner beyond closeout,a trend showing strength in Asia andEurope but only moving slowly inNorth America.

In actual practice, a BIM objectcan be a combination of many things:information content that defines aproduct; product properties; or ge-

ometry representing a product’sphysical characteristics. Among itsmore familiar functions, BIM pro-vides 3-D visualization data givingan object a recognizable appearanceand exhibits functional data, enablingan object to be positioned or reposi-tioned and then viewed throughoutvarious applications.

Many construction stakeholdersare coming to the realization thatBIM technology may be far superiorto shop drawings in terms of actualbuilding representation. Because 3-D objects are machine readable, spa-tial conflicts in a building model canbe tracked automatically. And by in-tegrating this capability at all phasesof project delivery, errors, omissions,and change orders due to internalcauses can be greatly reduced. Pro-ponents also contend that BIM im-

proves overall productivity due toeasier retrieval of information andincreases coordination of construc-tion documents, thereby increasingspeed of delivery and reducing de-lay costs. To that end, BIM quicklyembeds and links vital informationinto its model, including suppliersfor specific materials, location de-tails, and the quantities required forestimation and procurement.

National Building Specification,an informative arm of RIBA Enter-prises Ltd., which is wholly ownedby the Royal Institute of British Ar-chitects, publishes annual researchinto BIM adoption in the UnitedKingdom. A survey of 1,000 U.K.construction professionals last yearrevealed that BIM engagement hadincreased from 13 percent in 2011to 54 percent in 2014.

NBS suggests that organizations in-terested in pursuing or honing BIMstrategies need to perform five initialtasks: establish an existing BIM ma-turing level (knowledge base and/orlearning curve); examine current cli-ent base needs for best practices; re-view technological nature of currentprojects; forecast future work sectorplans and ambitions; and assess theskill sets of existing staff. Regardingthe latter, NBS emphasizes that BIMencompasses more than just knowl-edge about the latest 3-D imaging orCAD software; a wide range of tech-nical, communicative, and leadershipskills is required for a successful BIMproject.

January 2015

U.S. Geological Effects of HydraulicFracturing Need More Study, Research

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

ONE of the great debates sur-rounding the oil and natural gas ex-traction process of hydraulic fractur-ing, commonly known as “fracking,”centers on alleged geological sideeffects, namely the recent rise inearthquakes in states such as Arkansas,Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma,and Texas. Not surprising, this issuecould also prove as contentious asdiscussions regarding man-madeglobal warming (climate change) dueto a lack of sustained, conclusivescientific research. The question, ofcourse, still remains: Are earthquakesoccurring naturally or coincidentallyin regions where fracking is underwayor are they being caused or exacer-bated by fracking or its residual waste-water injection through undergroundwells?

Extracting oil or natural gas fromcertain formations deep underground,including shale, tight sandstones, andcoal beds, requires drawing the re-source through openings about one-half the width of a human hair. Theprocess uses water pressure and asand-and-chemical mixture to pro-duce a myriad of hairline fractureswithin the underground rock forma-tions through which oil or natural gascan flow. The contaminated water re-turns to the surface, requiring treat-ment, and then disposal through awastewater injection well, designedspecifically for this purpose. It is thelarge volume of discharged wastewa-ter, not the fracking itself, which isbeing targeted as the primary sourcefor triggering earthquakes by pressur-ing and lubricating geological faults.

The U.S. Geological Survey andOklahoma Geological Survey reportthat the state experienced more than180 quakes of 3.0 magnitude orgreater from October 2013 to earlyMay of this year. Most were tooweak to cause any property damageor endanger lives. Nevertheless, therecent number of quakes contrastssharply with an average of only twosuch events from 1978 to 2008. Forreference purposes, a 3.0 magnitudeearthquake is described by USGS ascausing “vibrations similar to thepassing of a truck.” More recentlyin July, during a span of only 14hours, USGS recorded seven smallquakes ranging from magnitude 2.6to 2.9, all centered in the Guthrie,Jones, and Langston areas, 15 milesto 30 miles northeast of OklahomaCity. Those quakes followed fourothers a day earlier, including a mag-nitude 4.3 tremor near Langston andthe other three ranging in magnitudefrom 2.9 to 3.2.

Near Azle, Texas, Southern Meth-odist University researchers have re-corded more than 300 quakes sinceDecember last year and are studyingthe premise of whether wastewater dis-posal wells in Azle and around NorthTexas are stimulating fault activity orif earthquakes are occurring naturally.USGS reports that North Texas has had70 earthquakes since 2008, comparedwith just a single quake recorded in1950 before then. SMU researchersalso studied two other earthquake se-quences in North Texas and con-cluded there was a plausible link be-tween the quakes and nearby injectionwells. Other seismologists, however,note that a clear correlation has notbeen established, aside from a conten-

tion that injection well operators couldsimply be pumping either too muchwater into the ground or pumping it atexceedingly high pressures.

Still, because the earthquake rate inOklahoma has risen by nearly 50 per-cent since October 2013, both USGSand Oklahoma Geological Survey em-phasize that the recent increase is notdue to typical, random fluctuations innatural seismicity rates. Instead, theagencies indicated earlier in May thata likely contributing factor to the no-table seismic activity is deep-injectionwastewater disposal. Consequently,Oklahoma recently enacted new test-ing and monitoring regulations for in-jection wells that require well opera-tors to collect daily information onwell volume and pressure, instead ofmonthly. The state has also increasedthe number of seismic monitoring sta-tions and now operates a network of15 permanent stations and 17 tempo-rary stations.

Back in the Midwest in Ohio, a geo-logical investigation into five smalltremors in the Youngstown area lastMarch found a probable link to hy-draulic fracturing caused by increasedpressure on a small, unknown fault ina Utica Shale bed. While earlier stud-ies had linked minor quakes in thesame region to wastewater injectionwells, this marks the first time thattremors have been tied directly tofracking, according to the Oil and GasResources Management Division ofthe Ohio Department of Natural Re-sources.

In response to Ohio’s recent seismicevents, the state has issued new per-mit conditions. All new drilling siteswithin three miles of a known fault orseismic activity of 2.0 magnitude or

higher will be conditional on the in-stallation of sensitive seismic-moni-toring equipment. The results will bedirectly available to regulators, so thestate will not be reliant on drilling op-erators providing the data voluntarily.If seismic activity of 1.0 magnitude orgreater is felt, drilling will be pausedfor evaluation, and if a link is found,the operation will be halted. Ohio hasalso imposed an indefinite drillingmoratorium at the site of the Marchquakes but is allowing oil and naturalgas extraction to continue at five ex-isting wells at the site.

Part of the reluctance toward label-ing fracking as the sole cause for re-cent earthquake activity is the fact thatthe process is not new. In fact, this yearthe American Petroleum Institute iscelebrating the 65th birthday of hy-draulic fracturing. From an industrialperspective, hydraulic fracturing hasbeen used on more than a millionwells nationwide and already accounts

for the majority of U.S. natural gas pro-duction. And according to the Societyof Petroleum Engineers, of the morethan 150,000 Class II injection wellsin the United States, only about 40,000are waste fluid disposal wells for oiland gas operations, with only a hand-ful having been proven to inducequakes that are large enough to con-cern the general public.

Preliminary findings of ongoingUSGS research indicate that hydrau-lic fracturing itself does not appearto be linked to the increased rate ofmagnitude 3.0 and larger earth-quakes in the United States. And al-though wastewater injection has notyet been linked to large earthquakesof magnitude 6.0 or higher, engi-neers and scientists cannot eliminatethe possibility, USGS notes. For in-stance, there is consensus that waste-water disposal induced the magni-tude 5.3 earthquake in Raton Basin,Colo., and the magnitude 5.6 quake

in Prague, Okla., both in 2011. How-ever, USGS researchers have alsofound that earthquakes induced byfluid-injection activities are not al-ways located close to the point of in-jection. In some cases, the inducedquakes have been located as far assix miles from the injection well.

Currently, there are no methodsavailable to anticipate whether aplanned wastewater disposal activ-ity will trigger earthquakes that arelarge enough to be of concern, theU.S. Department of the Interiorpoints out. Evidence from some casehistories suggests that the magnitudeof a quake tends to increase as thetotal volume of injected wastewaterincreases. Injection pressure and rateof injection may be factors, too, butmore research is needed for conclu-sive results.

October 2014

Green Energy Project DevelopmentShows Steady Utility Increase in U.S.

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

AS the Obama administration delib-erates on the controversial KeystoneXL pipeline crossing the U.S. borderfrom Canada, the industrial pursuit ofdomestic green energy — hydropower,wind, and solar projects — continuesat a modest pace, with hydroelectric-ity generation still leading the renew-able pack.

North American hydroelectric con-sumption, however, did see a slightdecline of 6.3 percent in 2012, accord-ing to Plunkett Research Ltd., attrib-uted to a below-average year due towidespread droughts.

The U. S. Energy Information Ad-ministration reports that renewableenergy sources provided about 12 per-cent of total U.S. utility-scale electric-ity generation in 2012, up slightly from11.83 percent in 2011, and 10.7 per-cent in 2010. The largest share of therenewable-generated electricity de-rives from hydroelectric power (56percent), followed by wind (28 per-cent), biomass wood (8 percent), bio-mass waste (4 percent), geothermal (3percent), and solar (1 percent). Coal(37 percent), natural gas (30 percent),nuclear power (19 percent), and pe-troleum (2 percent) remain the otherprimary sources of domestic energyproduction.

Wind power in the United States hasgrown dramatically from 11,187megawatts of electricity in 2003 to140,089 MW in 2012. Nationwide,investors directed $25 billion intowind energy in 2012, with U.S. windfarms reaching 60 gigawatts of capac-ity, according to the American WindEnergy Association (AWEA).

In 2013 alone, construction beganon wind projects across 13 states,slated to generate more than 2,300 MWof electricity. Texas remains firmly en-trenched as the leader in wind powerdevelopment, with seven of the 10largest wind farms in the nation, ac-cording to the U.S. Department of En-ergy, followed by Iowa, California,Minnesota, and Washington, with ad-ditional projects in Alaska, Colorado,Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota,Oregon, and South Dakota.

The Maine Public Utilities Commis-sion recently voted in favor of an off-shore pilot wind project that, hope-fully, will lead to commercial scale,floating offshore wind farms. Pendingwith the project is a $46 million DOEgrant aimed at creating large offshorewind farms that can produce power atcompetitive rates. Farther south, theNew Jersey Board of Public Utilitiesis deciding whether to approve a 25-MW demonstration wind projectabout three miles off the coast of At-lantic City, the state’s first offshorewind venture and the forerunner of amore expansive wind farm in federalwaters.

In Missouri, Element Power US,owner and developer of the Mill CreekWind Farm, and Kansas City Power &Light’s Greater Missouri Operationsrecently entered into a power purchaseagreement for the 200-MW wind en-ergy facility being constructed in HoltCounty. Once operational, the windfarm will be the largest in Missouri.And in the Blue Mountains of Utah,construction began in early Decemberon an 80-MW wind facility, a projectthat qualified for $42 million of invest-ment tax credits.

Utilities are poised to invest in morewind power because “it’s the smartthing for their ratepayers and theirbottom lines,” says Emily Williams,AWEA senior policy analyst. “XcelEnergy, Detroit Edison, Austin Energy,Omaha Public Power District, andAmerican Electric Power’s Public Ser-vice Company of Oklahoma have allpursued contracts in excess of theirinitial requests for more wind powergeneration because wind is saving theirconsumers money.”

On the solar energy front, both pho-tovoltaic and concentrated solarpower/thermal plants are experienc-ing significant technological innova-tion, including the use of polymersleading to more flexible solar panelsand advanced nanotechnology. In2012, CSP-generating units were themain source of electricity at 12 powerplants in the United States — 11 inCalifornia and one in Nevada.

According to the Solar ElectricPower Association’s annual megawattproduction rankings, Pacific Gas andElectric Co. in northern California ledall utilities nationally in 2012 and in-stalled more than 800 MW, an 80 per-cent increase over 2011. Its portfolioincluded nearly 630 MW of large-scale projects of which 50 MW wereutility-owned. PG&E also intercon-nected more than 17,500 net meteredsystems in 2012.

Southern California Edison rankedsecond with more than 190 MW ofnew solar power generation, drivenprimarily by 15,000 residential andnonresidential projects accounting formore than 150 MW.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co.in New Jersey rounded out the topthree utilities, and along with Jersey

Central Power & Light and ProgressCarolinas, was one of three utilitiesfrom the East Coast in SEPA’s top 10rankings.

Sacramento Municipal Utility Dis-trict, the only municipal utility to gaina national ranking, secured the ninthspot with nearly 70 MW of new solarpower generation. Its portfolio wasbacked by the utility’s procurement ofmore than 50 MW of large-scale pho-tovoltaic projects. Other utilities inSEPA’s top 10 rankings for 2012 in-cluded the Arizona Public Service Co.,NV Energy, Tucson Electric PowerCo., and the Hawaiian Electric Co.Utilities in the megawatt categorywere generally large, with a medianof 1.1 million customers, compared tothe median size of 300,000 for the top100 utilities that participated in thesurvey.

With hydropower facilities gener-ating 100,000 MW of renewable en-ergy from coast to coast, the United

States is the fourth largest producerof hydroelectricity in the world af-ter China, Canada, and Brazil. TheGrand Coulee Dam remains the fifthlargest hydroelectric power facilityin the world, and another six U.S.hydropower plants, including Hoov-er Dam, are among the 50 largest inthe world. The top 10 hydropower-generating states continue to beWashington, Oregon, New York,California, Alabama, Idaho, Tennes-see, Montana, Arizona, and NorthCarolina.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineersalso recently identified 223 potentialsites for additional hydro develop-ment nationwide, based on criteria thata site must be capable of generating 1MW or greater of hydroelectric power.According to the USACE study, thesites could combine for a cumulativeoutput potential of 6,256 MW, al-though the Corps noted that only2,818 MW of those would likely be

economically feasible under assump-tions made in the report.

To further bolster hydropower pro-duction, two bills were signed into lawlast August: the Hydropower Regula-tory Efficiency Act (H.R. 267) and theBureau of Reclamation Small ConduitHydropower Development and RuralJobs Act (H.R. 678). The former pro-motes the development of small hy-dropower and conduit projects andaims to shorten regulatory timeframesfor some low-impact hydropowerprojects, such as adding power gen-eration to existing non-powered damsand closed-loop pumped storage. H.R.678 authorizes small hydropower de-velopment at existing U.S. Bureau ofReclamation-owned canals, pipelines,aqueducts, and other manmade water-ways.

January 2014

Oil Shale Garnering More IndustryAttention, But Still Has Obstacles

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

IT is estimated that the oil shale po-tential in the western United Statescould yield an amount of oil greaterthan the proven petroleum reservesin the Middle East. And if fully de-veloped, oil shale could supply thecurrent U.S. consumption of oil formore than 70 years. Some studiesforecast even higher estimates. ARand Corporation report points outthat the current domestic demand forpetroleum products is about 20 mil-lion barrels per day. If oil shale couldbe used to meet a quarter of the dailydemand, the recoverable resourcescould last for more than 400 years.

Consequently, the magnitude ofthis energy resource potential ismaking it attractive for some energyindustry stakeholders to invest in itsdevelopment, or at least take a sec-ond look at its viability — somethingthat was briefly explored and thenabandoned in the early 1980s due toexcessively low oil prices and a lackof advanced cost-effective technolo-gies. Estonia and China already havewell-established oil shale industries,and Brazil, Germany, and Russia cur-rently utilize oil shale for varioususes. Australia recently commis-sioned its pilot demonstration oilshale plant in Queensland to beginthe production phase.

The largest known oil shale de-posits in the world are in the GreenRiver Formation, an area spanningportions of Colorado, Utah, andWyoming, with earlier oil estimatesranging from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion bar-rels. In 2011-2012, though, the U.S.Geological Survey increased its es-

timate of the amount of oil shale con-tained in the region to more than fourtrillion barrels, but not all resourcesin place are recoverable. Rand notesthat potentially recoverable oilranges roughly from 1.1 trillion bar-rels on the upper scale to about 500billion barrels on the lower side.However, the research organizationemphasizes that for policy planningpurposes, any amount of oil in thisrange is very substantial and worthyof consideration for development.

Low-cost oil shale commercializa-tion would, of course, yield tangiblebenefits, including reduced world oilprices, increased employment, andbolstered national security due toless dependence on foreign oil im-ports. Additionally, direct economicprofits could range as high as $20billion annually for an oil shale in-dustry producing just three millionbarrels per day. Rand reports thatthrough lease bonus payments, pro-duction royalties, and corporate in-come taxes, roughly half of theseprofits would likely go to federal,state, and local governments, there-by broadly benefitting the public atlarge.

The National Oil Shale Associationadmits that commercial operationscannot occur over night, but theycould evolve in a methodical mannerover years to achieve production lev-els in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 millionbarrels per day, which translates up-wards to 40 percent of the U.S. oil im-ports from OPEC countries in 2012 and100 percent of the oil imported fromthe OPEC Persian Gulf countries.NOSA adds, however, there are criti-cal issues that must be addressed be-fore successful commercialization of

oil shale can be realized cost effec-tively. Some of these include land useand ecological impacts, air quality,greenhouse gas emissions, water qual-ity and consumption, socioeconomicimpacts, leasing restrictions, and mar-ket risks.

Additionally, some confusion existsamong the general public and themedia regarding the term “oil shale,”which is often used synonymously —and sometimes incorrectly — with“shale oil,” also called “tight oil” orcrude oil. Oil shale contains an organicchemical compound known askerogen, from which liquid hydro-carbons called shale oil can be ex-tracted via high temperatures andvaporization, using either surface orunderground retorting technologies.Oil-bearing shale (shale oil), on theother hand, actually contains petro-leum elements or crude oil, which isextracted through an undergroundhydraulic fracturing process.

Shale oil is often found near drilledwells or known oil reserves, withsignificant deposits located in Sas-katchewan, Canada, and extendingsouthward through Montana, theDakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Okla-homa, and into Texas. Ohio and otherMidwest regions have documentedlarge shale oil deposits, too.

Water management is a key ele-ment in the oil shale landscapebecause direct consumptive waterrequirements range from one to threebarrels of water for every barrel ofoil shale produced, depending uponthe recovery technology being em-ployed. However, NOSA points outthat the quality of the required wateralso varies for commercial oil shaleprojects, and much can come from

non-potable sources. For instancethe waste water currently producedfrom the oil and natural gas wells andcoal-bed methane wells may betreated and used for various useswithin an oil shale complex.

Moreover, the amount of waternecessary for oil shale developmentcompares favorably with other en-ergy sources, according to NOSA.The consumption is much less thatethanol produced from irrigatedcrops and not significantly greaterthan fuel generated from conven-tional petroleum resources. Also, therequired amount of water will likelybe less as more advanced technolo-gies evolve and alternative sourcesof water are developed.

Perhaps the greatest challenge forthe oil shale industry currently liesin leasing rights and restrictions.The U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-ment controls more than 70 percentof the western oil shale resource. In

2008, BLM published a Program-matic Environmental Impact State-ment that amended 10 resource man-agement plans in Utah, Colorado,and Wyoming to make about twomillion acres of public lands poten-tially available for commercial oilshale leasing and development and430,000 acres potentially availablefor tar sands leasing and develop-ment.

However, in spring 2011, BLM ini-tiated a new planning effort to reas-sess the appropriate mix of publiclands to be made available for oil shaleand tar sands leasing. In November lastyear, new PEIS regulations for eightland use plans in Colorado, Utah, andWyoming were issued. BLM’s pre-ferred alternative now reduces theleasing acreage available for new oilshale development projects to676,967 acres and to 129,567 acres fortar sands development. Also, the newregulations only authorize research,

development, and demonstrationprojects, which can be later convertedto commercial leases when all condi-tions and regulations of the RD&Dlease have been satisfied and all fur-ther environmental reviews and pub-lic comment periods have been con-ducted.

Currently, there are oil shale proj-ects or applications under operationor development by American ShaleOil, AuraSource, Colorado EnergyResearch Institute, ConocoPhillips,Enefit American Oil, Energy Dy-namics Laboratory, Enshale, ExxonMobil, Genie Energy, Hatch, IdahoNational Laboratory, Natural SodaHoldings, Red Leaf Resources, SageGeotech, Shell Mahogany Research,and Total.

January 2013

Overhaul of U.S. Patent System

Creates Better Path for Innovation

By Steven J. Storts

Dublin, Ohio

THE America Invents Act, recently

signed into law by President Obama,

ends a nearly 60-year drought for

enacting major reforms to the nation’s

patent system. Moreover, the new

statute ends six consecutive years of

congressional debate aimed at stream-

lining operations at the U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office (USPTO) and

improving the overall quality of pat-

ents that are granted.

The U.S. House of Representa-

tives’ version of the legislation (H.R.

1249) passed last June, which was

identical to the Senate’s measure (S.

23) adopted a few months earlier in

March, was approved by the Senate

in September. “We cannot stand on

a 1950s patent system and expect

our innovators to flourish in a 21st

century world,” says Sen. Patrick

Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill’s main Sen-

ate sponsor. “The America Invents

Act will keep the nation in its

longstanding position at the pinnacle

of innovation.”

In terms of the broad expectations

for the new law, Rep. Lamar Smith

(R-Texas), the legislation’s main

House sponsor, notes, “It is impos-

sible for any one group to get every-

thing it wants. Inventors, businesses,

and other groups interested in patent

reform don’t agree on every issue

that we’ve debated for the past six

years. But our patent system doesn’t

affect an individual or company in

the same way because each one uses

the patent system in many different

ways.”

The recent legislation represents

a fair compromise and creates a bet-

ter patent system than exists today

for inventors and innovative indus-

tries, says Smith, pointing out that

frivolous lawsuits and uncertainty

regarding patent ownership have

dragged down the nation’s outdated

patent system. He also says that un-

warranted lawsuits, some costing as

much as $5 million for defense liti-

gation, prevent legitimate inventors

and industries from creating new

products and generating jobs.

Leahy emphasizes that the patent

system reforms will “improve patent

quality and limit unnecessary and

counterproductive litigation costs,

while making sure no party’s access

to court is denied.” Perhaps most sig-

nificant, the new legislation will con-

vert the nation’s patent system to a

first-inventor-to-file operation and

provide USPTO with the necessary

financial resources to improve qual-

ity and efficiency by providing the

agency with fee-setting authority,

subject to congressional oversight.

“The patent system envisioned by

our founders focused on granting a

patent to be awarded to the first in-

ventor to register an invention, as

long as it was not in public use when

the inventor conceived of the inven-

tion,” Smith explains.

Provisions of the 152-page Amer-

ica Invents Act were also crafted to

address “true patent certainty and en-

sure that small businesses are able

to compete with the larger companies

on a global scale,” which the current

patent system does not encompass.

Specifically, USPTO will establish a

Patent Ombudsman Program to pro-

vide services to small business con-

cerns and independent inventors on

matters regarding patent filings.

Of interest to manufacturing and

technology industries, the new law

addresses preissuance submissions

by third parties, introduces enhanced

post-grant review procedures within

USPTO, establishes special post-

grant review for business method

patents, and extends the deadlines

for filing post-grant opposition. The

threshold for instituting inter partes

reexamination will also be modified,

according to intellectual property at-

torneys Finnegan, Henderson, Fara-

bow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P., head-

quartered in Washington, D.C., with

offices in California, Georgia, Mas-

sachusetts, and Virginia, and in Eu-

rope and Asia.

The new threshold, Finnegan notes,

calls for a finding “that there is a rea-

sonable likelihood that the requester

would prevail with respect to at least

one of the claims challenged in the

request.” Equally notable, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir-

cuit will serve as the only appeal

route for ex parte reexamination de-

cisions.

Although the America Invents Act

was enacted September 16 of last

year, numerous provisions will not

be effective for as long as 18 months

after enactment, requiring USPTO to

promulgate regulations for imple-

mentation. However, already in ef-

fect is a 15 percent increase of all

USPTO fees, but the agency does

have some discretion in offering a

new “micro entity” discount of up to

75 percent.

Finally, under the patent system re-

forms, Finnegan cites “substantial

changes to the false marking statute,”

but also says patent holders may now

use virtual marking via a Web site.

Also noteworthy, patent challengers

who file proceedings may no longer

rely on “best mode” as a defense to

infringement.

How the new legislation will mesh

with the intellectual property per-

spectives of NSPE’s Professional En-

gineers in Industry interest group

remains to be seen. PEI’s past poli-

cies primarily have addressed intel-

lectual property agreements or rela-

tionships between an employee and

his or her employer (company). In

summary, the following have be-

come basic tenets for professional

practice:

n The professional employee should

cooperate fully with the employer

in obtaining patent protection for

any inventions.

n The professional employee should

not divulge proprietary informa-

tion.

n The employer should clearly iden-

tify proprietary information and

should release those inventions

and information generated by the

employee, which are not useful

to the employer.

n The employer should have an es-

tablished method and formula for

compensation over and above sal-

ary and fringe benefits for the pro-

fessional employee who gener-

ates inventions, patents, and other

proprietary information for the

employer.

n The employer should provide for

accelerated promotion and extra

compensation for superior per-

formance and/or special accom-

plishments, including generation

of proprietary information and

patents.

March 2012

Mt. Rushmore: A Technically Skilled,Creative Release for a Restless SoulBy Steven J. Storts

Dublin, Ohio

TO gaze upon the majestic granitefacade of Mt. Rushmore nestled in theBlack Hills of South Dakota, onewould not suspect that its sculptor,Gutzon Borglum, bore a restless youth.But this is often the case with creativegenius. He once said, “American artought to be monumental in keepingwith American life, and Rushmoreought to be colossal in keeping withAmerican achievements.”

Borglum, too, was colossal. Whenhe died suddenly in 1941 at the age of74, he left a lasting legacy of creatingmore art displayed in the nation’scapital than any other artist. Asanother sign of his artistic promi-nence, Borglum designed the flicker-ing flame on the Statue of Liberty’storch. Not only a prolific and talentedartist, he was also an active politicalfigure throughout his life.

Born in 1867 to Danish immigrantson the untamed frontier near BearLake, Idaho, Borglum became fiercelyindependent and rebellious at a youngage. His restless spirit found peaceonly when he discovered his father’sartistic abilities at the age of 14. WhenBorglum arrived in the Black Hills inthe early 1920s, he was 57 years old,but he fell in love immediately withthe area, pointing out that the granitein the mountains was “exactly what hewas looking for.”

Wanting to prepare something thatfuture generations forever would beable to enjoy, the carving of Mt.Rushmore became the focus of hislife for 17 years until his death. Infact, he died as the final dedication ofthe monument was being planned.

Borglum’s son Lincoln, who oversawthe carving when his father was away,completed the monument upon Bor-glum’s death.

America’s shrine to democracy wascarved in stone as a record andcelebration of the nation’s achieve-ment, growth, and spirit. The fourpresidents chosen—George Washing-ton, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lin-coln, and Theodore Roosevelt—symbolized the birth and growingpains of a new nation, each represent-ing a different stage of development.The mountain chosen for the mon-ument’s construction was dedicatedon August 10, 1927. The ground-breaking ceremony was symbolized bya set of drill bits handed to Borglumby President Calvin Coolidge.

The original surface of the moun-tain was soft and cracked, and nearlyhalf-a-million tons of rock had to beremoved to reach granite solidenough to begin carving. The actualcarving time of Mt. Rushmore wassix-and-half years spread over a 14-year period. Work was halted whenfunds diminished, or when weatherbecame too severe.

Borglum developed the engineer-ing techniques for mountain carvingwhile working on the ConfederateMemorial at Stone Mountain, Geor-gia. On both carvings, measurementsof models were multiplied by a factorof 12 and transferred to the mountainvia a boom and plumb line. Ninemodels were made before a groupingwas found that would not be affectedby the granite’s deep cracks. Forexample, Borglum originally speci-fied Jefferson’s head to be on the leftside of Washington’s (looking towardthe monument) instead of his right.

Also, Washington’s nose had to bemodified slightly, carved a littlelonger than earlier planned. AndRoosevelt is tucked away in thecorner of the monument because ofthe solid granite located there.

Still considered by many as anunsurpassed feat of technical skill,nearly 90 percent of Mt. Rushmorewas carved using dynamite. Duringconstruction, most of the workershung over the side of the mountainface in a type of chair with a swing-seat and harness, using their drills, air-hammers, and chisels. They wereraised and lowered from the top of themountain by cables attached to awinch. As workers neared completion,the surface of the rock was honey-combed with holes that weakened thesurface rock, making it easier to knockoff large sections of rock to do thefinal shaping of the monument faceswith hand chisels. Air-hammers andgrinders later helped to make the finalsurface smooth like a sidewalk.

According to original specifica-tions, Mt. Rushmore was to displayfull-bust figures of the four presidents,but when Borglum died unexpectedlyand Lincoln took over the project, itwas decided that future blastingshould be halted to avoid any damageto what already had been carved.Therefore, shortly after Borglum’sdeath in 1941, the monument wasofficially dedicated. And in whatperhaps could be regarded as a finaltribute to Gutzon Borglum and hisengineering prowess, no fatalitieswere incurred while constructing Mt.Rushmore, only a few minor accidentswith no serious injury.

October 1997