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.

ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Agency Profile The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), Aspen, Colorado, operates 84 heavy-duty transit buses, including 7 hybrids, all powered by diesel engines. Collectively, the agency buses travel approximately 3.5 million miles per year, with 4.1 million passenger boardings. RFTA consumed approximately 621,000 gallons of diesel fuel in 2006. RFTA’s service area ranges from 5,000 to 9,500 ft above sea level. Temperatures range from −20°F to 105°F; in the winter it is common for low temperatures to range from 0°F to −20°F. The average winter low in Aspen is 9°F. Keeping any diesel fuel from gelling at these temperatures is chal- lenging. The majority of RFTA’s route profile (duty cycle) is typically commuter with some central business district oper- ation. All buses are fueled and serviced at one of two main- tenance facilities. Reasons for Biodiesel Use In the fall of 2004, RFTA began using biodiesel in response to an RFTA Board policy to use a phased approach to con- vert the transit fleet to alternative propulsion technologies as a means of reducing the environmental impact of transit operations on the community and RFTA’s dependence on foreign oil by moving toward sustainable and renewable forms of energy. The RFTA Board refused to fund an alternative fuels pro- gram or purchase any new propulsion technologies if it would compromise planned service levels and operational sustain- ability. Once this was understood, RFTA began working with a citizens group and others to develop partnerships. As a result of these partnerships, RFTA’s entire fleet now operates on 10% renewable fuels (biodiesel and ethanol). Although the implementation of biodiesel presented challenges, RFTA hopes the lessons they learned can benefit others. Biodiesel Delivery and Blending RFTA uses a soy-based biodiesel, purchased as B99 and splash blended by the supplier owing to the lack of automated pipe-blending equipment. Biocide and water dispersant addi- 32 tives are added to the agency’s storage tanks just before biodiesel delivery. The program initially started with a B5 blend, which was increased to B10 in December 2006. At the same time, RFTA also began using an E10 gasoline blend in all of its gasoline-powered vehicles. RFTA now replaces approximately 67,000 gallons of petroleum fuel products with renewable biofuels each year. The incremental cost of RFTA’s Biofuels Program is $68,000 to $72,000, based on an overall fuel budget of approximately $1.7 million (a 4.25% increase). Initial Investigations RFTA’s initial investigation focused on three areas: 1. Initial funding: In 2004, RFTA received two biodiesel demonstration grants totaling approximately $25,000 to offset the incremental cost of B5 over diesel. Once RFTA spent the initial grant funds, it absorbed the added cost of biodiesel in its operating budget and con- tinues to do so today. 2. Cold weather storage and operation: After consulting with other agencies using biodiesel, RFTA became aware of major fuel gelling problems that occurred in vehicles and aboveground storage tanks during ex- treme cold weather. 3. Fuel Blends and Engine Specifications: Initially, RFTA was urged to test B20. After further research, however, two issues arose that led to the use of B5 for the demonstration project. First, there was limited experience with regard to biodiesel use in cold weather, high-altitude operations. Second, the engine manufac- turer would only allow the use of B5 in 14 buses covered under warranty. Biodiesel Introduced At the start of the 2004 ski season, RFTA surreptitiously began using B5. Because employees were unaware of any changes, the agency believed that any comments or opin- ions received would therefore not be biased. After one month of use, RFT asked operations and maintenance per- sonnel in a very generic manner how things were going. When no one reported any noticeable changes in the fleet, RFTA publicly announced that it had been using B5 for about one month. CHAPTER FIVE CASE STUDIES

33 No Problems . . . Then Fuel Contamination The biodiesel program ran very smoothly until mid-September 2005, when the agency began to experience problems with en- gines shutting down in six of the buses. The problems persisted even after replacing the fuel filters. The problem was initially diagnosed as failing or failed fuel transfer pumps. However, after replacing the pumps, the new pumps also failed within a few weeks. The agency realized something else was the cause. Maintenance personnel disassembled one of the failed pumps and found a creamy-colored slime inside, which they traced to bacteria growth. Sampling confirmed that they had both water and bacteria in their fuel. The agency quickly learned that when biodiesel comes in contact with water it provides an excellent medium for bacteria and algae growth. Further investigations by the agency confirmed that bacteria growth is a common problem with untreated biodiesel, although this issue was not widely discussed or known at the time. Tank Treatment Needed Once the bacteria problem was identified, RFTA’s fuel sup- plier arranged to have the underground tanks pumped out and treated with a biocide and water dispersant. The biocide pre- vents bacteria growth, whereas the water dispersant keeps water in solution to avoid creating a medium where bacteria can grow. All loads of biodiesel were treated with the same combi- nation of chemicals and steps were taken to prevent addi- tional water from entering the tanks. Follow-up fuel testing (now performed on a quarterly basis) revealed no evidence of bacteria or algae growth since the initial problem. More Tank Problems Develop After treating their storage tanks for water and bacteria, RFTA began having problems with fuel dispenser filters plugging, which lasted for almost a year. When filters were examined the agency found a black slime similar to what was found earlier with vehicle filters even though the tanks tested negative for bacteria. Research found that a school system using biodiesel had experienced similar problems, which were addressed by cleaning its tanks on an annual basis. In September 2006, RFTA cleaned its tanks at a cost of approximately $5,000, which then eliminated the filter plug- ging problem. It is important to note that RFTA is not completely sure that all of these problems could be directly attributed to the cleansing action of the biodiesel. One belief is that the contamination was caused by refineries scrubbing their diesel tanks in preparation for ULSD. Regardless, RFTA will continue to monitor its tanks for contaminates and clean them as needed. Vehicle Treatment and Remediation The bacteria/algae problem that first appeared in six buses operated almost exclusively in a low-speed, stop-and-go duty cycle. Once bacteria were found, RFTA drained the vehicle fuel tanks and refilled them with treated fuel. RFTA added a spin-on fuel filter between the fuel tank and transfer pump to catch any residual slime and bacteria before it could damage the pump. Over time the problems diminished. RFTA extended their search to other buses in the fleet, but did not find any visible bacteria growth in any other tanks. The agency speculates that engines equipped with suction side filters catch bacteria and debris before it can do damage. They also believe that gear-driven mechanical fuel pumps are much more durable than electric transfer pumps. Regard- less of the engine type, however, RFTA did use up many more fuel filters during that time (see Parts Usage below). Important Lesson Learned In hindsight, RFTA believes that they would have not have had problems if they were aware of the: • Bacteria problem in advance, treated the fuel accord- ingly, and conducted ongoing fuel sampling for bacteria; and • Cleansing action of the biodiesel, and had vehicle and storage tanks cleaned in advance of using the fuel. Increase to B10 By summer 2006, RFTA believed that it was through the steepest part of its learning curve with biodiesel. They were treating all fuel with biocide and a water dispersant, con- ducting regular bacteria testing, and modifying their PMIs as needed. At the same time, the city of Aspen had adopted the Canary Initiative in an effort to take a proactive stance against Global Warming (www.canaryinitiative.com/), and the state of Colorado passed legislation requiring utility com- panies to move toward purchasing at least 10% of its energy from renewable sources. In response, RFTA increased its use of biodiesel from B5 to B10. The agency was aware that it was risking warranty coverage and discussed the decision with their local engine distributor. Cold Weather Blending Problems In late 2006, Colorado experienced unusually cold tempera- tures. Following their normal splash-blending procedures, RFTA’s fuel supplier loaded 750 gallons of B99 into its tanker truck when the outside temperature was −20°F and the B99 was heated to approximately 120°F. The truck was driven approximately 35 miles, and when the driver started loading fuel into the agency’s storage tank, unbeknownst to the agency, the biodiesel portion had already started to

thicken. As a result, the mixing that was to occur during the splash-blending process had not taken place. The poorly mixed, more concentrated fuel was then dispensed into sev- eral buses during the daily refueling process. With night temperatures at −10°F to −20°F, RFTA parked many of its buses inside heated storage areas. The vehicles with concentrated biodiesel (unknown at the time) left early the next morning showing no signs of problems. However, after being in service for about an hour and exposed to the colder outdoor temperatures they began running rough. Mechanics traded out the vehicles and brought them back to the heated shop. When the mechanic checked the buses, they ran fine. The next morning the same rough running problem developed. Once aware of this pattern, the agency inspected fuel filters and took a fuel sample from their underground tank. They found no signs of bacteria, but did find that biodiesel settled at the bottoms of the sample jars; therefore, RFTA realized they had a poorly mixed load of biodiesel fuel. RFTA immediately contacted their biodiesel supplier to discuss the problem. The first challenge was dealing with the bad fuel in the buses and underground storage tanks. The sec- ond challenge was to develop additional procedures to prevent this from occurring again. The agency calculated that it had only 750 to 1,500 gal- lons of poorly blended biodiesel to contend with. They also discovered that when the samples were agitated the biodiesel remained in solution and did not settle back out. RFTA’s fuel delivery system indicated an in-ground fuel temperature of 38°F; well above the cloud point for even marginally mixed biodiesel. RFTA hoped that if it could remix the fuel, the biodiesel would return into solution somewhere less than a B10 blend. The agency added a load of straight diesel into the tanks, hoping it would provide enough agitation to remix the biodiesel. RFTA replaced fuel filters on the affected buses and refueled the units. Buses were also stored indoors until just before their scheduled pullout. The ambient temperature started to rise and after a few days everything returned to normal. Another Important Lesson Learned It was clear that during milder weather splash blending worked fine for small demonstration projects. However, the fuel distributor needs a much more advanced mixing system to dispense properly mixed biodiesel at cold temperatures. Such a system became operational at the end of March 2007. Until that time, RFTA’s fuel supplier agreed to provide only B10 when splash blended with diesel at ambient tempera- tures above 20°F. This procedure generally requires that fuel be blended midday during the winter months. 34 Financial Impacts Using Denver Rack Pricing (i.e., the price of fuel at the dis- tribution point excluding transportation costs) over the pre- vious 18 months, the incremental cost for B5 ranged from about 3 to 7.9 cents per gallon, and the incremental cost for B10 ranged from about 3 to 16 cents per gallon. Parts Usage The use of fuel filters from December 2004 through January 2007 increased by 33 filters for the 6 buses affected by the bacteria and poor mixing problems. The total cost of parts was less than $300 spread over 810,000 miles. A more significant cost was the fuel transfer pumps. However, it is difficult to determine if the cost of replacing these pumps was strictly the result of the use of biodiesel. RFTA estimates that three to five transfer pump failures may have been directly related to the bacteria problem. Service Interruptions RFTA attributed 15 to 20 road calls between November 2004 and January 2007 to the use of biodiesel. This count, how- ever, may be slightly lower than the actual road calls created by biodiesel, because the actual cause of problems may not have been known when road call coding was assigned. In any case, the total labor costs charged to biodiesel-related road calls was about 73 h. Only five reported road calls for biodiesel were a result of an actual breakdown; the others occurred in bus changes during scheduled layovers. To put road calls in perspective, RFTA operated close to 8 million miles during this period and the rate of occurrences was extremely low. However, when failures began to occur they were at times frequent and overwhelming. Partnerships Matter RFTA’s fuel supplier had a vested interest in ensuring that biodiesel worked for the agency and absorbed many of the costs resulting from the biodiesel problems. Concerning the fuel transfer pumps, the agency chose not to take a hard line with the engine OEM because it was not certain that biodiesel was the cause. Instead, the agency shared the risks and costs associated with the pumps because it believed that it was more important for the project to continue. RFTA believes that it is important to establish realistic expectations before embarking on any biofuels program by clearly identifying the risks the agency and its partners are willing to take. If all parties can come to an agreement in advance, the authority believes that any issues that do arise can be resolved more quickly and in an amicable manner.

35 Employees Matter Even More According to RFTA, the real success of a biodiesel program rests largely with the employees, most notably the maintenance staff. RFTA’s maintenance staff is comprised of loyal, dedi- cated employees that rose to the challenges of using biodiesel and made it work. As problems arose, innovative solutions were devised and proactive steps were taken steps to minimize disruptions of service. Good communications and quick reac- tions substantially reduced the extent of biodiesel-related problems. Concluding Thoughts and Opinions RFTA is quick to note that their biofuels program is part of a much broader vision that has been developing in the Roaring Fork Valley over the past 15 years. Global warming, energy conservation, and livable communities are topics of constant local discussion. When Aspen was classified by the EPA as a nonattainment area and gridlock became a common occur- rence, RFTA was asked to play a key role in mitigating these problems. The communities that support RFTA saw firsthand the difference public transit can make, and strong political and community support grew as a result. So did expectations to move toward a cleaner and more environmentally friendly transit system. All involved understood there would be costs associated with moving toward a greener fleet. Sales taxes generated in the local communities were expected to enable RFTA to spend approximately $70,000 in 2007 to offset the additional cost of replacing 67,000 gallons of petroleum-based fuel with agricultural-based renewable fuels. RFTA’s partners help to fund the incremental costs of green technologies knowing they are still in testing stages. Operationally, RFTA recognizes that environmental pro- grams are fraught with challenges. When asked about the economics of their hybrid and biodiesel programs, RFTA’s standard answer is that they do it because they believe it is the right thing to do. Biodiesel is a domestically produced renew- able fuel, and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 absorbed by the plants grown to produce the biofuels feed- stock virtually offsets all carbon emissions generated when biofuel is burned. RFTA believes that biodiesel will become a mainstream product in the near future and is looking forward to a new local biodiesel mixing station to improve the quality of biodiesel. This new station will be capable of providing B2 to B10 blends that will be properly mixed and treated so that future users will not be burdened with the same challenges that RFTA experienced. The agency has also been advised that when this station comes on line they should see a 50 cent per gallon drop in the price of B100. In conclusion, RFTA believes that it is important to revel in your successes with biodiesel, acknowledge your prob- lems, and thank those who got you through them. The agency points out that support of upper management and the RFTA Board was critical. Recommendations for a Successful Biodiesel Program RFTA offers the following recommendations: • Clearly identify the goals of the program – Identify needed resources and potential partners, and – Take a conservative approach—do not oversell the program. • Identify potential risks and costs – Determine what risks each partner is willing to accept, – Develop a 3 to 5 year budget that includes: ♦ Incremental cost for fuel, ♦ Additional fuel sampling, ♦ Biocide and water dispersant, ♦ Increased fuel filter and fuel system-related costs, and ♦ Tank cleaning and disposal costs. – Include contingencies for unexpected events, and – Present findings to the agency board and public. If support is in place and you decide to proceed: • Commit to the project wholeheartedly – Review NBB publication, Fuel Quality and Perfor- mance Guide (31). – Specify ASTM D6751 biodiesel from a BQ-9000 certified producer and accredited fuel marketer, – Avoid splash blending in colder climates, and – Treat all fuel with an approved biocide and water dispersant. • Sell program to the employees – Stress the importance of the programs’ success, – Acknowledge that there will be challenges, and – Cultivate the employees’ commitment and dedica- tion to help ensure the success of the program. • Sample fuel weekly for the first 12 months – Document all results. • Develop a good reporting process for unusual condi- tions, including – Slow fuel delivery at dispensing nozzles, and – Rough idling or dying engines. • Train maintenance staff on what to look for – Drain filters into a clean container. – Cut open filters to inspect them closely. – Sample from bottom of fuel tanks, and – Document everything: Save samples and take pho- tographs. • Provide regular feedback to staff, partners, and Board – Identify successes, – Acknowledge problems, – Recognize those who make the program work.

• Review goals – Quantify reductions in petroleum-based fuels, – Relate results to U.S. agricultural benefits, and – Identify green house gas emissions reductions. • Grow the program as you gain experience – Increase to B5, B10, and possibly B20; and – Consider ethanol for gasoline vehicles. CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY Agency Profile The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) in Columbus, Ohio, operates all of its 234 diesel buses on biodiesel, which collectively accumulate approximately one million miles of travel annually. The agency blends its own fuel in various percentages depending on the time of year and consumes approximately 965,000 gallons of B100 biodiesel annually, which represents about 48% of their total annual fuel con- sumption. The remainder is ULSD. COTA’s service area covers about 534 square miles and includes some hills. The average bus speed is 14 mph; the average winter low temperature is 22.7°F. All buses operate from two garages, with four underground diesel tanks. All vehicle storage is indoors. Reasons for Biodiesel Use The maintenance department initiated COTA’s use of biodiesel in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina disabled many southern refineries, causing an escalation of fuel prices. Biodiesel costs were higher than diesel costs; however, after Katrina, COTA’s maintenance department began to look at biodiesel more as an economic benefit. Including the blender’s tax credit, B100 was priced at $1.82/gallon com- pared with approximately $2.35 per gallon for ULSD shortly after Katrina. The more the agency looked into it, the more biodiesel made sense from a fuel availability and environ- mental benefit standpoint. In addition, biodiesel added lubric- ity to ULSD. Solid Biodiesel Specification Developing a solid specification is one of the reasons COTA can claim success for its biodiesel program. In developing the specification, the maintenance manager researched many publications, including those from NREL, ASTM, and the NBB. Calls were placed to fuel suppliers, the local uni- versity (Ohio State University), and those using biodiesel. Information from research on cloud point, water, glycerin, sulfur, cetane, and other topics prepared the agency to write its specification in a knowledgeable fashion. Key aspects of the specification include ensuring compliance to ASTM D6751 and BQ-9000, and establishing specific requirements for blending and delivery. COTA so completely developed 36 the specification that it has not changed from the original version. Since it began using biodiesel, the agency has not experi- enced any fuel separation or quality issues. The problems encountered, however, have more to do with the ULSD petroleum diesel. COTA periodically took fuel samples. Results showed a low cetane count, high sediment, high water content, higher than specification sulfur, and cross- contamination with other fuels. COTA believes that most reported biodiesel problems from other agencies are actually related to the ULSD base fuel. Cost Since first purchasing B100 in December 2005, COTA has seen the price increase from approximately $1.83 per gallon to $2.10, plus $0.07 per gallon for delivery. The agency was on a fixed-price schedule through June 2007. The cost of the base ULSD is currently $1.80 per gallon, which includes delivery. COTA claims the use of biodiesel saves the agency approx- imately $534,000 annually. The cost savings comes from what the agency projected to spend on fuel over the entire year of 2006; the first 6 months was projected at $2.45 per gallon delivered, and the last 6 months at $2.75 per gallon. The differ- ential between projected cost and actual blended cost per gal- lon constitutes COTA’s savings. Different Blends Throughout the Year To maximize use of biodiesel and avoid problems associated with the cold weather experienced in Columbus, COTA’s fuel management program includes maintaining the follow- ing four different biodiesel blends throughout the year: • December through April—B20 • May—B50 • June through September—B90 • October through November—B50. B90, which is the highest biodiesel blend used by any agency responding to the survey questionnaire, is used 4 months of the year when temperatures are mild, B20 is used 5 months annually during the coldest period, and B50 is used between seasons. Fuel Management Plan COTA strongly believes that a thoroughly developed fuel management plan is essential to a successful biodiesel pro- gram. Its plan is designed around the seasonal mean temper- atures in Columbus, the cloud point for each fuel blend, and fuel tank temperatures in the storage tanks. The program also involved contacting vehicle and facility fuel dispensing

37 OEMs to identify which component materials in their prod- ucts were not compatible with B100. Although the OEMs raised no fuel compatibility issues, the agency put in place a proactive program to monitor fuel pumps, lines, seals, gaskets, and other components for leaks and degradation to ensure that there were no compatibility issues. The monitoring program included cutting open fuel filters to examine them closely for contamination and exam- ining gaskets for leaks. Despite the claims by OEMs that all materials were com- patible, as biodiesel concentrations were increased, COTA anticipated and did discover some residual materials inside the filters. As soon as the problems were discovered, the agency contacted each component OEM to obtain further information on replacement parts (gaskets, fuel lines and hoses, fuel pumps, injector seals, etc.) that would be compat- ible with higher biodiesel concentrations. Based on information provided by the OEMs and other research, COTA put in place a campaign to change all affected components for a one-time cost of $17,000. The replaced parts included lift pumps, fuel lines, auxiliary heater lines, and primary/secondary fuel filter gaskets for 234 buses for a per-bus average of about $72 for parts. Given the annual savings of approximately $534,000, the agency believes that the one-time cost was well worth the effort and expense. The retrofit campaign involved, among other procedures, chang- ing to Teflon seals, stainless steel lines, and special fittings. In most cases, replacement components were available through traditional suppliers; in other cases, COTA had to make its own fittings, lines, and gaskets. By understanding that B100 could have compatibility issues with some materi- als and actively monitoring for signs of deterioration, the agency was able to prevent major problems. According to COTA’s maintenance manager, the issues did not prevent the agency from providing scheduled bus service. Regarding road calls, performance actually improved. In January 2007, COTA averaged 6,900 miles between service interruptions, the best record in the agency’s history. Delivery and Blending Procedures COTA has four 25,000 gallon underground tanks. COTA pur- chased B100 biodiesel from the supplier according to a fuel specification described earlier. The supplier delivered B100 to COTA’s tanks in specified amounts, along with alternating loads of diesel to achieve the desired concentration. Calculat- ing the concentrations is not a problem according to the agency. Each tank holds 22,500 gallons and calculations are made as to how much diesel and biodiesel fuels are needed based on the existing concentration and amount of fuel in each tank. COTA orders truckloads of fuel with diesel delivered first, followed by biodiesel, followed by diesel again; each load is calculated to a specified gallon amount to achieve the desired biodiesel concentration. Staggering the fuel deliveries (with biodiesel between the two diesel loads) assists with in-tank blending. Given that COTA uses four different biodiesel concentrations through- out the year, tanks are prepared with the desired concentration level in advance of the need, which also provides additional time for the fuels to blend more thoroughly. COTA is well aware that cold weather could cause problems with the delivery of B100. Tanker trucks making the deliveries are equipped with in-tank fuel heaters and a temperature gauge, and the temperature of B100 delivered must be in the 42°F–48°F range or higher according to the agency’s specifi- cation and contract term. COTA is also aware of the cleansing effect of biodiesel, and although storage tanks were only 4 years old, they were inspected and cleaned before using the biodiesel. A biocide is also added to the fuel by the supplier based on COTA’s contract requirements. COTA’s preparations have averted any fuel delivery or storage problems. Test Buses COTA began its biodiesel program with 10 buses using B20. After 30 days without experiencing problems, they added another 20 buses to the test program. As they continued to experience no problems, they converted the entire fleet to B20. The test period ran from January 15 through March 4, 2006. Test buses were fueled using two of the agency’s four tanks that contained the B20 blend, and their fuel doors were labeled with a special BIODIESEL decal to route them to the correct pump and fuel island. Warranty and Maintenance Although COTA understood that one of its engine suppliers only allowed up to B5 for warranty purposes, the agency decided that the benefits of higher biodiesel concentrations outweighed the risks. Given that the agency uses much higher concentrations on average, COTA fully understood that the engine OEM would not warranty the fuel system portion of the engine, but must warranty other parts of the engine not affected by biodiesel use. According to COTA, replacing the entire fuel delivery system on its engines is worth the risk. To date, COTA has not had any warranty issues regarding the use of higher biodiesel concentrations in any of its diesel engines. Based on collected failure and repair data, the cost to maintain engines operating on biodiesel is not significantly greater than operating the engines on ULSD alone. Addition- ally, rebuilding of engines revealed less carbon on internal engine parts because of biodiesel’s cleansing characteristics. Preventative Maintenance Procedures After changing fuel hoses, lines, gaskets, and other parts to be compatible with B100 during the initial retrofit campaign, COTA’s preventative maintenance remains unchanged.

Secondary fuel filter life was extended from 6,000 to 12,000 miles because the primary fuel filters were effective at trap- ping what little contaminates were left in the fuel system. Emissions An emissions study was conducted in Columbus using federal EPA modeling that calculates emissions outputs based on specific engines. The study revealed that the agency’s current program to use maximum levels of biodiesel according to each season is reducing PM emissions by more than 17 tons annually. COTA is also working with Ohio State University on a physical emissions study to help validate the EPA model, as well as the NOx issues related to the use of biodiesel. Marketing To promote its biodiesel use, COTA produced a flier entitled “Lean, Clean, Bean Machine” (32). The flier promotes the agency’s use of biodiesel as a renewable fuel that is: • Made from Ohio-grown soybeans, • Cleaner than diesel, • Non-toxic, • Able to reduce diesel emissions, and • Able to save the agency approximately $534,000 annually. The flier is attached as Appendix D. Recommendations for Successful Implementation Based on its experiences, COTA offers the following recom- mendations to assist others in successfully implementing biodiesel: • Do not begin a biodiesel program unless you are willing to do the necessary research and up-front work to ensure success; understand that storage and use of biodiesel is not the same as for diesel. • Successful biodiesel implementation is all about man- agement. Biodiesel needs to be managed like a special 38 fuel; you have to be aware of its limitations. • Start with purchasing biodiesel through a specification that meets ASTM and BQ-9000 standards to ensure fuel performance, quality, and consistency. • Conduct random testing to verify that fuel delivered meets all specification requirements. • Examine your operation to assess: – Existing fuel management program, – Vehicle storage (indoors or outdoors), – Ambient temperature conditions, – Geographic location (depending on concentration, biodiesel will cause loss of power on hills), – Fueling infrastructure and biodiesel availability to determine how fuel will be blended and stored, – Condition of fuel storage tanks to determine if clean- ing is required, – Compatibility of biodiesel with materials used in bus and facility fuel delivery and storage systems (seals, gaskets, pumps, valves, etc.), and – Engine OEM position concerning maximum biodiesel concentrations. • Develop a fuel management program that takes into consideration and anticipates all issues associated with biodiesel use. • Take actions based on your management program to monitor and identify potential problem areas, and respond appropriately. Key actions include: – Start with a small test program, – Clean storage tanks if needed, – Consult with OEMs and replace bus and facility component materials if needed to be compatible with biodiesel, – Monitor fuel filters carefully to identify potential contamination and fuel gelling issues in advance of developing into problems, – Ensure biodiesel is properly heated during cold weather months during delivery, – Pay particular attention to fuel storage gelling prob- lems if aboveground tanks are used, and – Inform engine OEMs of biodiesel use to determine warranty coverage; decide if benefits and other factors are worth using concentrations above recommended levels.