Use of Biodiesel in a Transit Fleet (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

23 AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATION The ATA, representing more than 37,000 members of the trucking industry, supports the use of biodiesel in blends up to 5% (B5) that meet quality standards (28). With the introduc- tion of ULSD, ATA believes that B5 will help maintain adequate fuel lubrication. ATA also believes that biodiesel represents an important part of a long-term energy plan designed to increase the nation’s fuel supply and reduce dependence on foreign oil. In supporting the use of B5, ATA makes it clear that it favors the adoption of a federal fuel standard, and vigorously opposes any state-mandated “boutique” diesel fuels. ATA believes that until biodiesel is incorporated into the federal fuel standard and its quality is assured, the marketplace rather than law should dictate whether such fuels are used by trucking companies. ATA also supports a generous federal tax credit to keep biodiesel competitively priced with petro- leum diesel. ATA is working with the biodiesel industry to avoid any problems associated with using the fuel. BIOTRUCKER A website dedicated exclusively to biodiesel use in trucking is located at http://www.biotrucker.com. The site includes listings for public filling stations that offer biodiesel. In addi- tion, a telephone number is available to help find biodiesel locations (1-866-BIODIESEL). Agencies can also use this information to locate public sites if they are interested in test- ing biodiesel on a limited number of buses before imple- menting onsite bulk storage. The BioTrucker website also includes a form letter truck- ers can use to encourage engine OEMs to support truckers wanting to use B20. As mentioned in chapter three, some OEMs limit biodiesel use to just 5%. Various testimonials from truckers using biodiesel are also listed on the site. MINNESOTA AND PORTLAND BIODIESEL MANDATES Minnesota was the first state to mandate the use of biodiesel, requiring that all diesel fuel sold in the state contain at least 2% biodiesel made from soybeans beginning in 2002. Within a few months as temperatures got colder, the requirement was temporarily suspended owing to reports by truckers of fuel filter plugging. Given the low percentage of biodiesel, officials were not clear if problems were caused by inferior biodiesel, high glycerin contained in the biodiesel, improper blending techniques, or if the fault rested with the base diesel fuel. Following Hurricane Katrina when diesel fuel supplies ran low, suppliers drained their tanks and refilled them with whatever fuel they could find. Running the tanks so low stirred up sludge at the bottom, which alone could have clogged fuel filters. Unlike centrally fueled fleets, over-the-road truckers must rely on a variety of independent filling stations for fuel. As a result, adequate fuel quality and blending are not assured and the likelihood of developing biodiesel-related problems is greater. Five years after biodiesel was first mandated, the Minnesota Trucking Association reported that the problems originally associated with biodiesel have been resolved, and the state continues to have a minimum 2% biodiesel require- ment (John Hausladen, Minnesota Trucking Association, personal communication, May 23, 2007). In another example, the Portland (Oregon) City Council approved an ordinance that will require all diesel fuel sold in the city to contain a minimum blend of 5% biodiesel, and all gasoline sold in the city to contain a minimum blend of 10% ethanol, beginning July 1, 2007. Minnesota and Portland are just two examples of localities throughout the country man- dating or planning to mandate the use of biofuels as a way of reducing petroleum fuel consumption. TRUCK AND BUS BIODIESEL EVALUATIONS A paper presented by the U.S. Postal Service, DOE, and Battelle late in 2005 at an SAE conference summarized a comparison of eight truck engines and fuel systems operat- ing on B20 and diesel (29). The test included four 1993 Ford cargo vans and four 1996 Mack tractors (two of each running on B20 and two on diesel). Engines and fuel system components were disassembled, inspected, and evaluated to compare wear characteristics after 4 years and more than 600,000 miles of operation. The study showed little difference in operational and maintenance costs between the B20 and diesel-fueled trucks. No significant dif- ferences in wear or other issues were noted during the engine CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIENCES WITH BIODIESEL

teardown. Mack tractors operating on B20 did, however, show higher frequency of fuel filter and injector nozzle replacement. Biological contaminants may have caused this filter plugging. A sludge buildup was noted around the rocker assemblies in the Mack B20 engines. The sludge contained high levels of sodium, possibly caused by the accumulation of soaps in the engine oil from out-of-specification biodiesel. Similar issues were not observed with the Ford cargo vans. Although the Mack and Ford engines used similar pump- line nozzle fuel injection systems, a much larger volume of fuel is recirculated in the larger Mack engines. Along with differences in duty cycle and engine loading, this may have accounted for the difference in performance of the two engine types operated on B20. In any case, the issues did not result in significant cost increases. The study noted that differences in fuel and engine system maintenance costs between the two vehicle types were not attributed to biodiesel-related issues. The study concluded that further research and analysis is needed to determine how different engine and vehicle types would react to B20. Concerning transit buses, a similar evaluation was pro- vided in an SAE paper presented by the DOE, Denver RTD, and Cummins at SAE’s Powertrain and Fluid Sys- tems Conference late in 2006 (30). The paper summarized the findings of nine identical 40-ft transit buses operating on B20 and diesel for 2 years. Each bus accumulated ap- proximately 100,000 miles. The 2-year study found no dif- ference in on-road average fuel economy between the buses operating on diesel or B20; each group averaged 4.4 mpg. Laboratory testing performed on the same buses, however, revealed a nearly 2% reduction in fuel economy for the group of B20 buses. Engine and fuel system-related maintenance costs be- tween the two groups of buses showed an increase of only $0.02 per mile for the biodiesel-fueled buses compared with diesel-fueled buses. The increase was attributed to fuel in- jector and cylinder head replacements on one bus (it is not known if biodiesel caused these failures) and occasional fuel filter plugging likely caused by the use of out-of-specifica- tion biodiesel fuel. There was no significant difference in miles between road calls, and oil analysis results showed no additional wear metals from the use of B20. Soot levels con- tained in the lubricant, however, were significantly lower for the B20 buses. In addition, laboratory chassis testing found that B20 reduced emissions of all regulated pollutants, as de- scribed in chapter three. TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES Forty-three transit agencies responded to a survey question- naire, of which 18 (42%) operate biodiesel buses and 25 (58%) do not. The 43 responding agencies operate a total of 15,291 diesel buses, 5,959 (39%) of which run on biodiesel. The combined biodiesel fleet represented in this survey trav- 24 els 217,857,955 miles annually. All survey responders (grouped by those using and not using biodiesel) are listed in Appendix B. Responses to all survey questions are summa- rized on the original survey form included as Appendix C. The survey responses indicated a good collective under- standing of biodiesel regardless of whether agencies are using the fuel or not. Those with biodiesel experience exhib- ited a solid knowledge of the benefits associated with the fuel along with the corrective actions needed to overcome the drawbacks. Most (67%) use a specification to procure biodiesel and almost half are using B20 or higher blends, which indicate that they feel confident in their ability to ad- dress the challenges associated with the higher blends. All but three using biodiesel have verified warranty coverage with their engine manufacturer. There were, however, areas where those using biodiesel could take more initiative. Only half of those responding make use of marketing material to inform the public of their biodiesel use and its benefits; many were unaware of the cost reductions being passed down to them by the blender’s tax credit, and of a new study showing that NOx emissions is not as significant as once believed. Agencies using biodiesel were very generous in offering in- formation and recommendations based on their experiences. Those agencies not currently using biodiesel had plans to switch in the near future, were pursuing other emission reduction strategies, or were not allowed to use diesel in their area (e.g., Southern California). Gauging by the number and quality of responses to the question on what areas they would like the synthesis to cover, virtually all responders showed sincere interest in learning more about biodiesel. AGENCIES NOT USING BIODIESEL Those Without Short-Term Plans Nineteen of the 25 agencies (76%) not currently using biodiesel indicated that they have no near-term plans to use the fuel. Twelve are pursuing other alternative fuels or emissions- reduction strategies, with hybrids mentioned most often (six responders). Fourteen of the 19 agencies without near-term plans stated that they were either unsure of the benefits or dis- advantages of biodiesel or stated that there is no compelling reason to do so at this time. Five agencies reported that biodiesel is not available locally in their area. Other reasons given for not using biodiesel include a con- cern with fuel consistency (three responders), cold weather concerns (two responders), possible increase in NOx emis- sions (two responders), uncertainty about biodiesel’s effects on engines (two responders), higher costs associated with biodiesel, and the uncertainty of using biodiesel on a diverse fleet. Two of those agencies with no near-term biodiesel plans had actually used the fuel in the past, but switched back to conventional fuel because of costs, problems encountered

25 with the fuel, and the unknowns associated with biodiesel. One of those agencies will switch back to biodiesel because of a state requirement, but is asking for a waiver to conduct limited testing. Three agencies with no near-term plans did, however, indicate they would have an interest should the benefits become more evident and no long-term problems develop for those currently using biodiesel. Those with Short-Term Plans Six of the 25 agencies not using biodiesel (24%) indicated that they do have near-term plans to use it. Five of the six plan to convert shortly or within the year, with the sixth planning to try biodiesel when it becomes available in their area. One of the six agencies that will try biodiesel is currently setting up a pilot program to test biodiesel in its trucks and school buses before introducing it to their transit bus fleet. Perceived Advantages When asked about reasons for wanting to try biodiesel and their perceived benefits of it, the overwhelming reason cited was the environmental advantages of the fuel, its renewable nature, and the need to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Three agencies are motivated by increased lubricity and cetane. Other reasons include public relations benefits, that biodiesel is “better” than compressed natural gas, local regulations, reduced fuel taxes, and the need to support local farming interests. Perceived Disadvantages When asked what they see as the primary disadvantages to biodiesel, this group of six with short-term biodiesel plans cited: • Higher costs and reduced fuel economy (six responders), • Increased NOx emissions (four responders), • Engine and warranty concerns (four responders), • Fuel quality and cold weather concerns (four responders), • Plugged fuel filters (two responders), • Material incompatibility (two responders), • Algae (bacteria) growth and the need for increased bio- cides (two responders), • Substantial emissions reductions only possible with higher biodiesel concentrations (two responders), • Long-term maintenance of fuel storage tanks, and • Fuel unavailability. Report Areas to Address When asked what they would like to see addressed in the syn- thesis, those not currently using biodiesel collectively cited: • Emissions and environmental impacts (four responders), • Cold weather problems and other technical issues (three responders), • Use with ULSD (three responders), • Fuel quality and specifications (two responders), • Warranties (two responders), • Additives (two responders), • Blending and dispensing (two responders), • Cost, and • Lack of availability. AGENCIES WITH BIODIESEL EXPERIENCE Overview The 18 agencies responding to the survey that are using biodiesel have a combined fleet of 7,353 diesel buses, of which 5,959 (81%) are operating on biodiesel. Table 6 shows these agencies, along with their location, biodiesel fleet size versus total bus fleet, percentage of biodiesel used (under B20 in one group, B20 and over in another), and the tenth percentile mini- mum ambient air temperature (TPMAAT) for the month of January. This temperature classification, based on a U.S. Army study, is used in the ASTM D975 diesel specification for esti- mating expected temperatures for a given region when deter- mining appropriate cloud point temperature properties for diesel fuels (Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, D975). TPMAAT is defined as the lowest ambient temperature that will not go lower on average more than 10% of the time. In other words, the daily minimum ambient air temperature would on average not be expected to go below the monthly TPMAAT more than 3 days for a 30-day month. The TPMAAT for the month of January was used in various tables in this chapter because it typically represents the coldest winter month. As indicated in Table 6, 10 (56%) of the 18 agencies using biodiesel use concentrations under B20, whereas the remain- ing 8 agencies use B20 or greater. When asked if their use stems from a requirement to use biodiesel, 14 (78%) reported that they are not required to use biodiesel, whereas 4 agencies each cite a specific state requirement. Test Buses Biodiesel use on a limited test fleet can help identify prob- lems in advance of widescale implementation. However, only seven (39%) of the agencies using biodiesel began with an initial test on a limited number of buses. Of these seven agencies that began biodiesel use with a limited test, five have since converted their entire fleet to biodiesel. Table 7 shows the breakdown of buses first used as an initial biodiesel test compared with the total number of diesel buses in their fleet. Use of Biodiesel Specifications The use of specifications to procure biodiesel is essential. Twelve of the agencies using biodiesel (67%) follow some type

26 Agency Biodiesel Total/ Diesel Total Biodiesel (%) January TPMAAT (°F) Using B20 or Greater 1 Mass Transportation Authority (Flint, MI) 10/10 20 2 NAIPTA, (Flagstaff, AZ) 14/14 20 1 CATO 3 (Columbus, OH) 234/234 20–90 1 4 Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) (OH) 24/174 20 1 5 Bi-State Development Agency (Metro) (St. Louis, MO) 130/426 20 3 6 Sun Tran (Tucson, AZ) 43/110 20 25 7 King County Metro (Seattle, WA) 639/1,273 20 19 8 Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) (Orlando, FL) 4/248 20 37 Using under B20 1 Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (Burnsville, MN) 108/108 2 −29 −9 −22 −29 −15 −6 2 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (Aspen, CO) 79/79 10 3 Metro Transit (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN) 830/830 5 4 Ames Transit Agency (CyRide) (Ames, IA) 63/63 2–10 5 Pace Suburban Bus Service (Arlington Heights, IL) 700/700 10 6 Connecticut Transit (Hartford, CT) 398/398 5 1 7 Madison County Transit (Granite City, IL) 111/111 2 1 8 Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) 500/500 2–10 0 TriMet 9 (Portland, OR) 825/825 5 19 10 Metropolitan Transit Authority (Houston, TX) 1,250/1,250 10 27 TPMAAT = tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature; NAIPTA = Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority; COTA = Central Ohio Transit Authority; TriMet = Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. TABLE 6 BIODIESEL USER PROFILE—AGENCIES USING BIODIESEL

27 of specification to purchase biodiesel. Nearly all that use a spec- ification (10 responders) either use ASTM D6751 (5 respon- ders) or ASTM D6751 plus the BQ-9000 quality requirement (5 responders). Although it is encouraging that so many re- ported using specifications, all agencies should be doing so when procuring fuel whether the fuel is diesel or biodiesel. Procedures and requirements used by these agencies to procure biodiesel include: • Establish a good relationship with the supplier; know the raw product. • Require tanker truck compartments sealed after filled at terminal. • Require proof of insurance. • Provide delivery time frame. • Require discount from biodiesel rack average price for contract length. • Initiate random monitoring of fuel quality once per month; retain samples. • Require biocide and “Tank Dri” to prevent bacteria growth. • Require delivery temperature and time, and process for blending on site. Cost and Incentives The agency cost for biodiesel averaged $2.06 per gallon, eight cents higher than the average of $1.98 per gallon reported for ULSD. The range of $1.68 to $2.75 per gallon for biodiesel compared with a range of $1.67 to $2.45 paid for a gallon of ULSD. Tax breaks or other incentives for using biodiesel were reported by 8 of the agencies (44%) using biodiesel. The in- centives came in the form of a blender’s tax credit (four responders), tax-exempt status (two responders), and grant money. One agency reported that lower biodiesel cost was a benefit. Although only four agencies reported the blender’s tax credit as an incentive, all biodiesel blenders do receive a credit, of which agencies may not be aware. Cold Weather Problems Table 8 classifies agencies with biodiesel experience under the TPMAAT in degrees Fahrenheit for the month of January in three categories: Below 0°F, 0–19°F, and above 19°F. Without listing agencies by name, the table indicates which had problems associated with biodiesel delivery, storage, or vehicle-related problems organized by TPMAAT tempera- tures for January. Ten of the 18 agencies using biodiesel (55%) reported having some type of vehicle-related problem, although the frequency decreases for agencies with warmer January tem- peratures. When it came to storage, 6 of the 18 (33%) reported problems, whereas 7 (39%) reported problems with delivery (specific problems are presented in the following sections categorized by delivery, storage, and vehicle). Agencies in climates with TPMAAT for January above 19°F reported the fewest number of problems in all three areas. Delivery Specific delivery problems and the resulting action taken by those experiencing delivery problems are summarized in Table 9 according to temperature. Three of the seven agen- cies that reported problems (43%) were related to cold Biodiesel Test Fleet Total Diesel Fleet % of Test Fleet to Total Fleet Current Biodiesel Fleet 232 398 58 398 (100%) 230 1,273 18 639 (50%) 75 825 9 825 (100%) 10 234 4 234 (100%) 10 426 2 130 (30%) 6 830 <1 830 (100%) 3 14 21 14 (100%) Total 4,000 3,070 (77%) Note: Agencies that began biodiesel use with limited test fleets. TABLE 7 BREAKDOWN OF BUSES USED IN INITIAL BIODIESEL TEST Maximum Biodiesel Delivery Problems Storage Problems Vehicle Problems January TPMAAT Below 0°F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No %2 10% %5 10% %02 10% %5 January TPMAAT 0°F to 19°F %09 %02 %2 10% %02 %02 January TPMAAT Above 19°F %02 20% %5 %01 %02 TABLE 8 PROBLEMS BY JANUARY TPMAAT

28 nekaT noitcA melborP yrevileD January TPMAAT Below 0°F 1. B100 used to blend at the rack did not meet cold weather specification; vendor and terminal were not monitoring it Changed vendors; terminal increased frequency of testing B100 (we use the same terminal but different vendors). 2.. Cold weather mixing continues to be a problem Vendor must mix load inside or discontinue splash blending when temperature is below 20°F. 3. There have been times when the blend is inconsistent Held discussions with fuel supplier and determined that mixing/blending issues can be attributed to the loading sequence or method of loading the delivery truck. If the ULSD fuel is loaded into our tanks from a separate compartment on the tanker truck then the blending process is only accomplished during the unloading drop. This results in inconsistencies in the blend once it is in the storage tank. However, if biodiesel is premixed with diesel into the tanker truck and then delivered to our tanks the fuel is sufficiently agitated. This method is by far the better of the blending options. Changed to a small 30 micron filter (just to protect metering device), and added a very large 10 micron external filter. Have had great results, now fuel is filtered three times before it reaches the pump or vehicle. 5. Fuel dispensing filter plugging in cold weather Required supplier to have improved cold weather additives. January TPMAAT 0° to 19°F 6. Insufficient biodiesel supply at various times to meet delivery needs January TPMAAT Above 19°F 7. Received some loads high in glycerlin and/or moisture content. This has been caught in fuel island filters and has not affected the bus. Hydrosorb filters are very sensitive to moisture content and sometimes give a false-positive indication. When we have seen high moisture it has not manifested into the bus fleet; however, we still change out filters more frequently on the fuel island We have the fuel delivery contractor retain a quart sample of each delivery. They withold a quart of ULSD, a quart of B100 and a quart of B20. These are held for 7 months. All of our deliveries are a full truck and trailer load, 8,000 to 9,000 gallons at a time. This is part of the contract terms. 4. Fuel dispensing filter plugging after pumping approximately 4,000 gallons. Originally would last 30,000 plus gallons TABLE 9 DELIVERY PROBLEMS BY JANUARY TPMAAT

29 weather; all of which are located in areas with a minimum January TPMAAT of below 0°F. Storage and Dispensing A majority of the agencies using biodiesel (78%) have replaced their entire diesel supply in bulk storage, whereas the others use separate biodiesel storage tanks and dispensers or “wet hose” dispensing where a tanker truck fills all buses individually. Twelve of 18 agencies using biodiesel (67%) reported no storage problems. The problems that do exist do not appear to be related to the percentage of biodiesel used. Of the 10 agen- cies using under B20 only three had storage-related problems. Likewise, of the eight agencies using B20 or higher only three reported storage-related problems. Table 10 groups reported storage problems by tempera- ture. Three of the six that reported problems (50%) were related to cold temperatures, whereas the remaining three were related to high levels of algae (bacteria), water, or glyc- erin. It is interesting to note that cold weather-related storage and dispensing problems were reported in all three tempera- ture classifications. Handling and Infrastructure Twelve of the 18 agencies using biodiesel (67%) reported handling procedures or requirements that differ from tradi- tional diesel handling; six agencies reported no changes in their procedures. All of the changes are procedural in nature and include: • Place placards on dispensers to reflect biodiesel content. • Store biodiesel in separate tanks during initial test program. • Additional testing/monitoring was in place during initial test of B20. • Blend biodiesel at the rack (pipe blended), not on a truck or in underground tanks. January TPMAAT Below 0°F nekaT noitcA melborP egarotS 1. Algae (bacteria) growth in underground tanks Killed the algae (bacteria), changed vendors, terminal improved its testing frequency. 2. Algae (bacteria) growth in underground tanks Annual tank cleaning; each fuel load is treated with a biocide and ìTank Dri. ” Vendor is required to cover all clean-up costs associated with bad fuel. Agency pays for annual tank cleaning cost (approximately $5,000). A/N spu ezeerf retliF .3 January TPMAAT 0°F to 19°F 4. Gelling problem when temperatures got down to 15°F and we switched to ULSD. The only change from four previous winters of no gelling was ULSD. We think refineries cannot get emissions where they should be because of the winter additive. At this point we have not received any good answers Diluted with No. 2 diesel for the remainder of the winter from B20 to B5. January TPMAAT Above 19°F 5. Received some loads high in glycerine and/or moisture content We have the fuel delivery contractor retain a quart sample of each delivery. They withhold a quart of ULSD, a quart of B100 and a quart of B20. These are held for 7 months. All of our deliveries are a full truck and trailer load, 8,000 to 9,000 gallons at a time. This is part of the contract terms. .retniw rof noitartnecnoc leseidoib desaerceD detaler rehtaew dloC .6 N/A = not available. TABLE 10 STORAGE PROBLEMS BY JANUARY TPMAAT

• Temperature of biodiesel when delivered must be above 40°F/50°F (two responders). • Install filters with water block media on fuel islands to remove moisture from biodiesel (two responders). Vehicle-Related Experiences Table 11 shows the vehicle-related problems grouped by temperature and the percentage of biodiesel used. Of those 10 agencies using under B20, 5 reported problems, whereas the other 5 did not. For the eight agencies using B20 and greater, six reported problems and two did not. Of the 15 vehicle-related problems, 8 (53%) were related to clogged fuel filters, whereas 5 (33%) were related to 30 decreased fuel economy. Clogged fuel filters were reported in all of the temperature ranges in vehicles with blends as little as B2. Those with clogged filters corrected the problems by: • Changing fuel supplier, • Monitoring filter sight glass at fuel island daily, • Changing filters more frequently (five responders), • Adding secondary fuel filters (two responders), • Cleaning fuel storage tanks, • Reevaluating fuel treatment and mixing procedures, and • Increasing fuel testing for bacteria. As expected, there was no corrective action listed for reduced fuel economy. Vehicle Problem Action Taken Biodiesel (%) January TPMAAT Below 0°F 1. Clogged fuel filters Changed fuel vendors; added second filter on one group of buses 2 2. Clogged fuel filters Reevaluated fuel treatment and mixing procedures; increased fuel testing for bacteria; reduced fuel filter replacement interval; installed pre-filters before transfer pump on certain engines 10 01 enoN ymonoce leuf decudeR .3 4. Increased failures of transfer pumps on certain engines; other engines not affected fleet Check vehicle tank for algae (bacteria) when excessive filter plugging occurs 10 5 )deificeps ton smelborP( .5 6. Clogged fuel filters Changed more frequently 10 01 enoN ymonoce leuf decudeR .7 January TPMAAT 0°F to 19°F 02 yltneuqerf erom degnahC sretlif leuf deggolC .8 09–02 enoN %5.0 yb ymonoce leuf decudeR .9 02 nwonknU sretlif leuf deggolC .01 02 nwonknU ymonoce leuf decudeR .11 12. Clogged fuel filters Monitor filter sight glass at fuel island daily, change filter when needed 20 January TPMAAT Above 19°F 13. Clogged fuel filters Cleaned out dirt in in-ground tanks; localized to one of four locations 20 14. Fuel filter clogging on about 20% of 5 nwonknU 15. Reduced fuel economy None; ULSD and biodiesel both have slightly less energy than petroleum diesel 5 TABLE 11 VEHICLE PROBLEMS BY JANUARY TPMAAT

31 Warranty Ten of agencies using biodiesel (56%) reported that the per- centage of biodiesel they use conforms to engine manufac- turers’ recommendations, whereas seven (39%) reported their biodiesel use does not conform. Fifteen of 18 agencies (83%) have verified warranty coverage with the engine man- ufacturer; three have not. Thirteen of the agencies using biodiesel use percentages above B5. Although policies regarding warranty coverage have changed since this survey was conducted, it appears that many agencies are not informed of the actual warranty policy, have chosen to risk warranty coverage owing to the benefits of using higher biodiesel blends, or have received special warranty cov- erage from their engine supplier. Lubricity Five agencies have experiences to share concerning lubricity of biodiesel and failures related to certain engine fuel pumps have ceased. Biodiesel and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Seven agencies reported experiences with ULSD to share: • No problems encountered, and the use of ULSD is a non-issue (five responders). • Supplier has not been able to reduce the gel (cloud) point to pre-ULSD levels. • Biodiesel (B2) enhances the lubricity of ULSD (five responders). Preventive Maintenance Inspections Thirteen of the responding agencies (72%) reported that PMI procedures have not changed because of biodiesel use. Four reported that procedures have changed: • Change fuel filters much more frequently (two respon- ders). • Add secondary fuel filter. Emissions Experiences Five agencies (28%) reported having experiences or testing results concerning exhaust emissions and use of biodiesel. • West Virginia University testing done in 1995. • Emissions testing with B10 performed by University of Houston (Texas) resulted in an average of 2.5% increase in fuel use, a 2% increase in NOx, and an 11% decrease in PM emissions. • Samples were taken to measure PM; and comparisons were made. Results were mixed. More studies are needed, because information is inconclusive. • Supplier conducts emissions testing per our agreement. Marketing and Public Awareness Efforts Only 9 of the 18 agencies (50%) developed marketing ma- terial to promote biodiesel to the public. Given all the neg- ative publicity generated over diesel use before current emissions reduction technologies, promoting the use of biodiesel can do a great deal to overcome this and improve transit’s image. Metro Transit (Minneapolis, Minnesota) has produced a flier entitled Metro Transit’s “Go Greener” Initiative, which includes the agency’s use of biodiesel as one of sev- eral approaches taken to fulfill its commitment to improv- ing the environment. Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA, Columbus, Ohio) also has a relevant flier entitled Lean, Clean Bean Machine. Both fliers are included as part of Appendix D. Areas That Report Should Cover and Other Information Survey responders were clear about those areas the report should cover. All suggestions, which included fuel quality, adverse effects of biodiesel, storage issues, blending, cold weather use, warranty issues when using blends of higher than B5, and emissions, were taken into consideration and have been addressed by this synthesis. Responders with biodiesel experience were also generous in offering advice that would benefit their peers concerning the use of biodiesel. Those comments are summarized at the end of Appendix C and have been incorporated into the rec- ommendations included in chapter six.