The best way to understand an issue is to see it from all sides, to know what adversaries want in a resolution. The relationship between the petroleum and biodiesel industries is a complicated one—competition and partnerships, opposition and patronage, all rolled into one complex dynamic. Therefore, who better to serve as the biodiesel industry’s technical point-person than someone who began their career in the oil business followed by 25 years’ worth of laboratory experience?&nbsp; Scott Fenwick became the National Biodiesel Board’s technical director last year, taking over for Steve Howell, who left big shoes to fill. While Howell is still with the organization in a senior technical advisory role, Fenwick has assumed the day-to-day responsibilities Howell managed so well for so long.&nbsp; Fenwick grew up in central Illinois and went to school at Purdue University studying chemical engineering and chemistry. Shortly after graduating, he moved to New Orleans, closer to his extended family, in order to get a start in the oilfield business. After working part time for some barge operations and oil-site remediation, Fenwick began working for several global, independent lab service companies. This was more than 25 years ago. After a few years, he moved to Houston to help manage a larger laboratory. While working in Houston for several years, and on a trip back to New Orleans, he met his wife. When they married in 1994, he was relocated back to New Orleans to help build and manage a new laboratory. After Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, Fenwick and his wife relocated their family up to central Illinois as he continued to work in New Orleans. Nearly a year after the hurricane and living apart, he took a position with Archer Daniels Midland Co. in Decatur, Ill., covering ADM’s biodiesel technical services for North America and South America. For nearly the past 10 years of his career, Fenwick has traveled extensively for work, conferences and consulting. Q: How were you first introduced to biodiesel, and when?A: I first became acquainted with biodiesel back in the mid- to late-1990s. Several biodiesel facilities were just beginning and submitting initial samples to the lab I was managing in New Orleans to help determine conformance against the ASTM specifications. Some of these biodiesel producers at the time were experimenting with different feedstocks. I’ve jokingly said that some of the samples we received may have even had beaks and feathers still within them. This was a time during which the industry was just starting up and quality was nowhere near what it is today. Q: You’ve been the technical director at NBB for about a year now. What has been most challenging about the role, and the most rewarding?&nbsp; A: When you begin to speak about renewable fuels, and biodiesel in particular, there are always questions and concerns over what might still be unknown. Petroleum companies, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and users alike all believe that biodiesel is one of the newest fuels in the marketplace and might not be as well understood as traditional petroleum-based fuels. When there is an issue, it must certainly be related to some property of the biodiesel that had been overlooked or even covered up, right? What most consumers don’t realize is that biodiesel got its start in the mid-1990s. Diesel fuel changed in 2006 when the U.S. EPA mandated ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). Compression ignition (diesel) engines today have changed to high-pressure common rail systems and are completely redesigned. One of the biggest challenges is educating fuel users that the performance of biodiesel is as well understood in today’s engines as any traditional petroleum fuel such as ULSD. The most rewarding is the closer working relationship that I have with the larger industry as well as the staff and contractors within the National Biodiesel Board. Not only are they some of the most intelligent and well-respected persons in their individual roles, but they approach each day and challenge with a passion to serve not only our members but also the American public. Q: Biodiesel quality has improved greatly over the years. To what do you attribute these improvements?&nbsp;&nbsp; A: I truly believe that the biodiesel industry is interested in making a positive difference in today’s society. The industry is a little more mature today in understanding its own new technologies and production techniques, as well as now having a better understanding of the fuels industry as a whole. The ASTM biodiesel specifications are ever-evolving as we uncover new information about interactions with other fuels and today’s newer engines. In fact, there have been 18 revisions to the D6751 specifications, since the original specifications were published back in 2002. The BQ-9000 programs have helped with quality assurance, but the industry is now to a point where it has begun to police the quality of its own product. Q: What biodiesel quality-related issues continue to be investigated on a technical level?&nbsp; A: The National Biodiesel Board continues to manage several technical projects designed to deliver the seamless fuel performance that customers expect. Our members have several opportunities throughout the year to provide feedback on the technical programs they feel are most relevant to the success of the industry. Much of this past year’s feedback has focused upon expanding the possibilities of further market penetration. Besides encouraging industry quality enforcement, we are working on securing B20 approvals within the ASTM heating oil specifications, confirming biodiesel blend stability values for applications with high-pressure common rail engines, confirming the current biodiesel metals limits for engines over their entire useful life with B20, and developing the acceptance of B20 fuels within the railroad industries. Each application has its own unique challenges being studied to provide assurances to users that the increased volumes of biodiesel will not be problematic. Q: What is the latest biodiesel news on the ASTM front?&nbsp; A: The most recent ASTM meetings were held this past June in Indianapolis, and we had a record number of ballots relating to or affecting the biodiesel industry. At the forefront were two that I’d like to talk about. We had a ballot to increase the allowable biodiesel content in heating oil, ASTM D396, which currently approves up to 5 percent in No. 1 and No. 2 grades, and we are looking to increase that to 20 percent. The ballot we put forth is one of the most technically comprehensive ballots I’ve ever seen at ASTM. We had information included that basically showed the performance of B20 far outweighed and outperformed the baseline petroleum counterpart—we had fewer leaks from B20, improved emissions and no impacts on performance of the equipment. We did see a few negatives with that ballot, which were more related to the structure of the new specifications and whether it could, or should, be included with the existing specifications or a standalone separate specification. We’re addressing those issues and we will reballot that in December.&nbsp; The other big one is jet fuel. The biodiesel industry has completed recent studies investigating 400 ppm contamination levels in jet fuel to see if that would have any impact on fuel performance with the idea that we would ballot an increase in the allowable content up from 5 ppm to 100 ppm. The airline trade association, Airlines for America, the military and others are in favor of this increase and have deemed it to not be a flight safety risk. This new limit would allow for pipelines to carry biodiesel blends and still manage safe movement of jet fuel.&nbsp; Q: OEM approval of higher blends is an essential part of greater biodiesel acceptance. Can you talk about ongoing work in this field?&nbsp; A: Biodiesel is still considered new to the fuel industry. However, what most people don’t realize is that, while biodiesel has been in the marketplace since the early 2000s, diesel fuel itself had a drastic makeover in 2006 in changing from low sulfur diesel to ULSD. Engines themselves have improved and changed just in the past three to four years as well. The biodiesel industry has prided itself on working with each of the OEMs to answer questions they might have on performance in their new engines. One such example is a current study that we have just begun, looking at fuel stability for biodiesel blends in new high-pressure common rail engines. I’d also like to say that the BQ-9000 commission is working on a new program for retailers that we hope will provide confidence throughout every level of the fuel distribution system and quality assurance for biodiesel blends. The program will audit retailers for tank maintenance, buying fuel from approved sources and things of that nature.&nbsp; Q: Could you briefly describe how the ASTM spec for biodiesel has evolved over the years, and what has been behind that?&nbsp; A: There has been a total of 19 versions of D6751 since its inception in 2002—that’s 18 revisions plus the original. Each time the industry has brought forth what it believes to be an issue with biodiesel, we have addressed those with improvements to the specifications (e.g., cold soak filtration, Grade 1 with a monoglyceride limit, etc.). The current biodiesel specifications have approximately 20 parameters to check for fuel quality whereas diesel fuel, under D975, currently has only 13 parameters, so it could be said that there is more strict oversight on biodiesel fuel quality than on diesel fuel.&nbsp; Q: In your opinion, what are some areas of improvement needed in the ASTM spec for biodiesel?&nbsp; A: Current and future research will help us answer this better and determine what improvements need to be made. Again, we have an ongoing research project on stability in today’s newer engines. If we find in this study that oxidative stability in biodiesel or blends need to be improved, then we will ballot that.&nbsp; Q: People often say biodiesel is not a “drop-in” fuel. How do you respond to this?&nbsp; A: That’s difficult because the term “drop-in” means different things to different people. But at the point of production, whether it’s a petroleum fuel, or biodiesel or another type of renewable fuel, none of them typically meets the specifications without improvement from additives or further blending. Today’s OEMs are coming forth with new concerns about renewable diesel that some might consider to be a “drop-in” fuel. And the ASTM specifications have historically been based upon petroleum refined fuels, so there may be some applications and properties that we’ve taken for granted that we need to go back and review.&nbsp; Q: A question I get a lot is, “My diesel car is only approved for B5. Will higher blend levels of biodiesel void my warranty?” How do you respond to this?&nbsp; A: The answer is absolutely not. We do realize some OEMs only approve B5, and blends up to B5 can be legally sold as diesel fuel. Even those prominent OEMs that approve B5 (Volkswagen and Mercedes) have privately issued confirmation letters to registered owners in these states (Illinois where B11 is common) that the use of biodiesel up to B20 will do no harm to their engines and does not void the warranty. Q: What have been some of the most remarkable technological advances in the history of biodiesel processing? A: I think there are several. It’s the industry’s ability to adapt, which is not a specific breakthrough, but when cold soak filtration became a part of the specification, our producers quickly learned what it would take for their fuel to meet the new spec. Also, when the industry asked for lower monoglyceride content, National Renewable Energy Laboratory had finished a biodiesel survey across the U.S. and found nearly 90 percent of the industry passed the new mono spec before it was even published. The industry’s ability to process lower-grade, lower-cost feedstock through new technologies such as enzymatic processing, which appears to be taking hold with a few producers across the U.S., and a myriad of other process techniques, is truly remarkable. I call it the Microsoft approach—there’s no one correct answer or means to an end.&nbsp;&nbsp; Q: Over the years, what have been biodiesel’s greatest technical achievements?&nbsp; A: It’s important to note that each new study continues to paint a better picture of biodiesel, whether it is greenhouse gas reductions, energy balance, life-cycle analysis or emissions. Each new study comes out with almost continual improvement.Q: What are the biggest technical challenges that face biodiesel?A: I think the biggest technical challenge is the biodiesel industry has reached a point in volumes where we’re no longer filling niche markets, but we’re being found across the board. And we need to ensure that biodiesel has the performance characteristics that customers expect. And to date, we have.&nbsp; Q: How do the technical successes and challenges of biodiesel in the U.S. compare to those around the world?&nbsp; A: While the U.S. might have initially started behind Europe in production and use of biodiesel, I see the research that we’re doing now taking a lead and being looked at by markets all over the world. For instance, we had discussions earlier this morning with the nation of Colombia regarding biodiesel blend research at 10 percent and the effects on today’s engines. So the research we’re doing not only affects the U.S., but it also affects biodiesel blend performance and fuels all over the world.&nbsp; Q: Something we heard about several years ago is harmonization of global biodiesel standards. Can you talk about this and what the future holds for harmonization?&nbsp; A: There have not been any further discussions on harmonization. In fact, the biggest outcome of those discussions in 2007 was that there are rational reasons for the differences we find throughout the global specifications, whether those are attributable to different emissions regulations, regulated sulfur content or cold flow characteristics, each plays an important part in the performance of those fuels on a local or regional basis.&nbsp; Q: How does the policy uncertainty that biodiesel faces, in the U.S. and internationally, affect progress on the technical front?&nbsp; A: It slows it somewhat, but it certainly doesn’t prohibit progress on the technical front. RFS2 and other state policies are basically designed as a floor for biodiesel consumption, but hopefully we have markets such as Bioheat along with the desire of industries to move toward better emissions and lower carbon fuels that can create those discretionary blending opportunities to grow beyond that established floor. Hopefully, the work we’re doing on a technical front helps assure confidence in higher concentrations of biodiesel.&nbsp; Q: If you could change one thing about the biodiesel industry, what would it be?&nbsp; A: I guess the one thing I would change would be to figure out a way to reach a greater number of people and educate them about the performance and benefits of biodiesel blends. Besides all of the technical work we do, if we can’t communicate that better, then it doesn’t do us any good. Author: Ron Kotrba Editor, Biodiesel Magazine 218-745-8347 rkotrba@bbiinternational.com

medium_QA-Biodiesel-Fenwick-0915.jpg

small_QA-Biodiesel-Fenwick-0915.jpg

thumbnail_QA-Biodiesel-Fenwick-0915.jpg

QA-Biodiesel-Fenwick-0915.jpg

In a Q&A with Biodiesel Magazine, Scott Fenwick, technical director for the National Biodiesel Board, discusses biodiesel fuel quality, ASTM developments and technical progress. 

A New Era of Technical Leadership

On Oct. 5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 was issued by President Obama requiring federal agencies to develop a plan to reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels, and increase use of renewable energy. One section of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for providing navigable waterways and carries out that mission with approximately 2,300 floating plant assets, including barges, tow boats, floating cranes, survey boats, patrol boats and dredges. USACE planned to meet the requirements of the executive order by reducing ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) consumption and by increasing use of biodiesel on its floating plants. Since the critical nature of the USACE&rsquo;s mission could require immediate response with all equipment, it was decided that a trial evaluation program of biodiesel on a small scale should be carried out. The evaluation began with four vessels made available by USACE&rsquo;s districts in Baltimore, St. Louis, San Francisco and Buffalo. They ranged in size from a 36-foot drift-collection vessel (BD-5) to a 98-foot debris-collection vessel (Raccoon). The other two vessels were a 75-foot towboat (Pathfinder) and a 52-foot tug (Mike Donlon). Next steps called for training the corps personnel on biodiesel use, assessing fuel delivery and engine components, and developing vessel-specific plans. Staff training began with participation in a Federal Non-Tactical Vessel Biodiesel Initiative. The FNTV Working Group reviewed proven methods of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration&rsquo;s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, which has successfully used B100 in its vessels since 2000. The working group identified nine areas to be watchful for when converting to B100: cold flow properties, material compatibility of hoses and gaskets, microbial growth, energy content, filter plugging, water separation, storage stability, OEM warranties, and cost. Additionally, three mechanical areas of the four vessels were targeted for pretrial assessments: injectors, valves (especially exhaust), and fuel delivery hoses and seals. Assessments identified the need to install four pad heaters below the external fuel tanks on the San Francisco vessel, replace fuel injectors on the towboat in St. Louis, and install new 10-micron filters on all four vessels and replace them more frequently. Plans for evaluating B100 usage in field trials were developed and implemented. The performance tests consisted of &ldquo;run tests&rdquo; at constant power levels over select water courses, and &ldquo;push tests&rdquo; where the vessels pushed against fixed bulkheads. These tests were performed and monitored while the vessels were operating the engines on ULSD, and then repeated while operating on B100. Surprisingly, though fuel consumption differences varied with engine power, they showed that, in general, less B100 was consumed than ULSD at the same power settings. Monitoring of vessels during regular operations using B100 revealed easily correctable mechanical problems. In one vessel the fuel lines degraded; however, this did not reoccur after they were replaced with hoses rated for biodiesel use. Another vessel using B100 experienced fuel filter plugging immediately after being fueled and the reason was not found. After pumping out the fuel, the vessel used several tanks of ULSD and then resumed operations using B20, with no further problems. The success in the initial field trials led to an expanded study of biodiesel fuel use in an increased number, and more diverse types of vessels, with improved monitoring of fuel consumption and emissions. The expanded study involved 14 corps vessels, different levels of monitoring, and different blends of biodiesel, ranging from B5 to B100. The basic level of evaluation consisted of using biodiesel during normal operations and surveying the crew regarding their opinions on its operational suitability (e.g., delivered power, engine condition, etc.). The crews of the vessels involved in the expanded study were favorably impressed with the reduction in soot and overall cleanliness that came with biodiesel fuel. One operator said, &ldquo;It puts out less emissions and odor,&rdquo; a plus for someone in the pilot house near the stacks. The maintenance personnel liked the cleaner appearance of the insides of the engines when using biodiesel and one mentioned a potential for reduced maintenance with B100. There were no maintenance issues associated with using biodiesel; however, all vessels took the precaution of increasing the frequency of replacing fuel filters when they switched to biodiesel. None of the vessel operators had issues related to engine power or efficiency, and no instances of adverse effects on routine vessel operations were reported. The fuel usage and costs were reported to be comparable to those for ULSD. In addition to the field trials, a comprehensive testing project was carried out with two vessels equipped to measure engine power and fuel consumption, equipment installed by the Bristol Harbor Group, a naval architecture and marine engineering company located in Bristol, R.I. Additionally, emissions were measured by the University of California, Riverside&rsquo;s Center for Environmental Research and Technology. The evaluation consisted of running &ldquo;push tests&rdquo; for three fuels: No. 2 diesel; B100 soy-based biodiesel and a second-generation/advanced biodiesel, namely a 50/50 blend of an algal-based biodiesel with No. 2 diesel. The algal-based biodiesel was produced by Solazyme for the U.S. Navy and was used in a number of successful field trials, but emissions data were lacking. Testing was conducted and emissions were measured following federal protocols. Compared with No. 2 diesel, B100 showed a 61 percent reduction in soot but the algal-based did not show a reduction. Detailed emission results will be available in a technical report. In summary, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers field trials demonstrated the feasibility of using biodiesel fuels by USACE floating plants to increase use of renewable energy and reduce the use of fossil fuels. From February 2011 to April 2014, the total volume of biodiesel consumed was about 3.1 million gallons. Relative proportions for the different blends were B5 at 1.34 million gallons, B10 at 178,000 gallons, B15 at 653,000 gallons, B20 at 848,000 gallons, and B100 at 43,000 gallons. All of the Corps Districts that participated in the expanded study intend to continue their respective use of biodiesel fuel. Authors: Bob Leitch, Tim Welp USACE Asset Management Program Manager Senior Researcher, USACE Engineer R&amp;D Center robert.b.leitch@usace.army.mil timothy.l.welp@usace.army.mil

GUINEA PIG: The 98-foot debris-collection ship, the Raccoon, was one of four initial vessels the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated in a biodiesel trial. 

2014/09/Use-Biodiesel-Raccoon-0914_14096699624825_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/Use-Biodiesel-Raccoon-0914_14096699624825_thumb.jpg

2014/09/Use-Biodiesel-Raccoon-0914_14096699624825.jpg

EXPANDED TRIALS: 14 USACE vessels, like the dredge seen here, were used in the expanded biodiesel study, which included improved monitoring of fuel consumption and emissions.

2014/09/Use-Biodiesel-Potter-0914_1409669961769.jpg

In 2009, an executive order was issued requiring federal agencies to reduce energy consumption, GHG emissions and fossil fuels, and increase renewable energy use. The USACE is using biodiesel to help comply. 

US Army Corps of Engineers Powers Floating Plants with Biodiesel  

Welcome to the Quality, Testing &amp; Standards issue of Biodiesel Magazine. In the world of biodiesel, quality is one of those topics that is as important as they come. Quality concerns from the early days of biodiesel helped shape the current ASTM specifications for biodiesel, which, in turn, helped vastly improve the quality of fuel in the marketplace. This, of course, instilled confidence in blenders and distributors, many of whom also rely on BQ-9000 and their own independent specs, to move more product with assurance and faith. But in the biodiesel industry, it’s not just the fuel product itself that has needed quality interventions.&nbsp; As you know all too well, the RINs associated with biodiesel have had their own infamous quality disasters. This led to the formation of an NBB RIN integrity task force and eventually a complex, costly and burdensome set of proposed “voluntary” regulations that U.S. EPA set forth in early 2013. A year and a half later, EPA finalized the rule, which you can read about on page 26 in “QAP 2.0: The Final Rule.” If it’s fuel quality you want more perspective on, however, then this issue of Biodiesel Magazine has that as well. I sat down with Scott Fenwick, the National Biodiesel Board’s technical director, to talk about quality improvements over the years, the latest on the ASTM front and much more in “A New Era of Technical Leadership,” on page 20. In addition to information about quality and standards, here you can read about a variety of related topics, from how Fenwick deals with the inquiry of how higher blends of biodiesel will affect warranties on diesel vehicles from manufacturers that only approve up to B5, to his thoughts on what a “drop-in” fuel is, to the industry's greatest challenges and accomplishments. But the coverage of fuel quality doesn’t end there.&nbsp; Our Legal Perspectives columnist James L. Pray with BrownWinick gives us a compelling article on the legal ramifications of selling off-spec fuel, detailing what could happen and offering guidance on how to avoid off-spec fuel issues. Be sure to check out “Legal Liabilities for Sale, Shipment of Off-Spec Biodiesel” on page 6.&nbsp; And if it’s testing that gets your blood pumping, we bring you Eurofins QTA President Kangming Ma’s Talking Point column on page 7, “Eurofins QTA to Introduce In-Line Analysis for Biodiesel Production.” Many of you use QTA and this is one more service from which you could undoubtedly find value.&nbsp; I hope you enjoy this issue, and keep making quality fuel, biodieselers!Author: Ron Kotrba Editor, Biodiesel Magazine rkotrba@bbiinternational.com

medium_EDNOTE-BRM-ron-1110.jpg

small_EDNOTE-BRM-ron-1110.jpg

thumbnail_EDNOTE-BRM-ron-1110.jpg

EDNOTE-BRM-ron-1110.jpg

QUALITY, TESTING & STANDARDS

The consequences for producing and shipping biodiesel or other renewable fuel that fail to meet applicable specifications are grave. While many defective products can generate similar legal liabilities, defective fuel is probably unique in the far-reaching negative impacts that can ensue. There are several steps that producers can take in order to avoid issues related to off-spec fuel and, once a problem has been identified, there are important measures that must be followed to successfully resolve the problem.&nbsp; First, biofuel has value as a commodity only as long as it meets an applicable specification. Once a fuel fails to qualify as a commodity fuel because of a manufacturing, transportation or storage error, then it is at risk of becoming a liability instead of a product. For off-spec fuel, the once-valuable fuel may be treated as a hazardous waste instead of just a hazardous commodity, with all of the consequences inherent in properly handling, transporting and disposing of hazardous waste. Second, because it is a liquid, it can be mixed and blended with other fuels during the transportation, storage and distribution process. This means that 200,000 gallons of off-spec fuel may now be mixed with 1 million gallons of in-spec fuel, with the potential that there are now 1.2 million gallons of off-spec fuel. The claim has just increased six-fold in size.&nbsp; Third, as with any defective product, if the defect is not caught prior to retail distribution, the off-spec fuel can generate consumer claims, class action lawsuits and complaints from transportation and storage vendors saddled with bad product in their tanks, rail cars and trailers. In addition to damage to engines, some jurisdictions and contracts may allow recovery of economic damages including demurrage charges and lost revenue because tank cars, trailers and storage tanks are effectively out of commission until the off-spec fuel is removed or blended to meet specification (if that’s even an option).&nbsp; What can be done to avoid or mitigate off-spec fuel issues? First, check your paperwork. It is important that every producer know the specification stated in a purchase order. Also, make sure that your lab is testing against that particular specification. European or special-use fuels may have subtly different tolerances for certain chemicals. Also, try to make sure that invoices and orders agree on where the product will be tested for compliance, whether at the producer’s point of origin or the destination.&nbsp; In my experience, it is important for manufacturers to leave some margin for error when testing fuel. While a particular brand of lab testing equipment may be consistent when tested against other lab equipment made by the same manufacturer, that fact is not always true when cross-testing the same product with lab equipment made by different manufacturers.&nbsp; Carefully consider all process changes. In the manufacturing world, many vendors are intimately involved in the process that goes into making the products that they buy. That is not usually true in the arena of commodities. Products are called commodities because they meet an accepted industry specification. This means that it is up to the producer to fully understand how any change in production or source material may alter the final result.&nbsp; Once a problem is identified, file a claim with all insurance companies potentially having coverage. Resist the temptation to hold back filing a claim. I have seen too many executives try to get a problem handled without getting the insurance company involved because they are worried about increased premiums. I can guarantee that if you do not alert your insurance companies quickly enough, they will argue there is no coverage because of the delay.&nbsp; After the insurance company has been contacted, it is the producer’s job to cooperate with the claims agent and any attorneys retained to defend the claim. Because of the valuable nature of fuel oil, the potential losses can be staggering. It’s important to contact all umbrella and excess carriers in case the claims exceed the limits of the main liability policy.&nbsp; It’s not uncommon for insurance companies to deny coverage, even when it appears that the policy provides coverage. In some jurisdictions, there is almost no disincentive for insurance companies to deny coverage and to force their customers to get a ruling from the courts in order to enforce insurance policies. In that case, be prepared to handle the claim as quickly and economically as possible. Be sure to document the basis for each decision. Author: James L. Pray Attorney, BrownWinick Law Firm 515-242-2404 pray@brownwinick.com

medium_LP-Biodiesel-pray-0914.jpg

small_LP-Biodiesel-pray-0914.jpg

thumbnail_LP-Biodiesel-pray-0914.jpg

LP-Biodiesel-pray-0914.jpg

There are several steps that producers can take in order to avoid issues related to off-spec fuel and, once a problem has been identified, there are important measures that must be followed to successfully resolve the problem. 

Legal Liabilities for Sale, Shipment of Off-Spec Biodiesel

Biodiesel quality is important to maintain the integrity of the RFS2 program. Therefore, biodiesel producers have taken all the resources to implement a reliable quality control system. In most of these practices, samples are taken to the quality control lab from the test points of the production line. Important chemical or physical parameters have to be analyzed by skilled chemists or technicians, including samples from transesterification, methanol, glycerin and B100. The analytical results are used to monitor the process and reaction and, if necessary, fine-tunings or corrections are made. Oftentimes, these samples are at elevated temperature and need to be handled cautiously. Commonly there is a delay before analysis results are available for the operator to make the processing decisions (e.g., adjusting the amount of catalyst, changing temperature, pressure, flow rate, etc.), or the end-point determination of the transesterification reaction. Biodiesel producers are looking for a more effective analytical technology with constant monitoring directly at the critical test points (i.e., in-line analysis).&nbsp; Fourier Transform Near-Infrared (FT-NIR) spectroscopy is a rapid and nondestructive technique often used for in-process analysis of multiple physical and chemical characteristics in the manufacturing environment. Real-time measurements can be implemented with no sample preparation and the analytical data can be obtained, stored and utilized quickly. However, even though the technology has been available for years, producers are still cautious of having in-line analysis capability due to the complexity of using it. Compared to the bench-top at-line FT-NIR or FTIR analysis, in-line analysis is a significantly complex system to implement and maintain and needs heavy upfront investment commitment. Factors of the sample temperature, flow rate, turbulence, color, contamination, homogeneity, etc., impact the spectral quality and therefore the analyzed results. In order to implement in-line analysis successfully, an experienced in-process spectroscopist is usually required to design the sampling system, build the application algorithms, maintain the hardware and algorithms, trouble-shoot and resolve all the possible application issues. Historically, in-line analysis has been introduced to the chemical industry for monitoring key parameters in the chemical reaction at well-established chemical processes. With the establishment of the biodiesel industry, producers are reaching out to explore the benefits of in-line analysis capability. As an infrared solutions provider, Eurofins QTA is ready to offer the in-line solution for biodiesel production.&nbsp; According to users’ manufacturing processes and test requests, Eurofins QTA will work with potential users to define the best solution of the sampling method and the system configuration. For a normal in-line NIR application, there are three major components including an NIR spectrometer located in a well-protected room or enclosure, required fiber optic cables connecting the NIR spectrometer and the production line, and a flow-through cell or a fiber optic probe to collect NIR spectra from different test points. If it is necessary, a multiplexer coupling with fiber optic cables can be used to extend the application of one NIR system up to 16 test points or reactors (e.g., biodiesel processing line, methanol recycle tank, glycerin purification tank, etc.).&nbsp; Due to the complicated sample matrix of the raw materials used in biodiesel production, the NIR algorithms used are usually more difficult to build and maintain than the standard chemical processes. Similar to the off-line NIR service, Eurofins QTA provides the total solution for the in-line users. The users do not have to worry about all the complicated issues. A feasibility study will be performed to make sure it works before the user spends their money on the instrument and other required devices. After the confirmation of the feasibility, QTA patented technology will be used to develop the most rugged in-line algorithms. A simplified user interface allows the plant operator to do the in-line analysis easily. Remote instrument monitoring assures good performance of the spectrometer. 24/7 helpdesk service and remote problem solving capability minimize system downtime. A centralized database allows the users and the managers to access their analyzed data anytime and anywhere via the Internet. Remote method development also allows the user to expand or change their applications without limit. With all the advantages, Eurofins QTA in-line service will become a powerful analytical tool for biodiesel production. Author: Kangming Ma President, Eurofins QTA Inc. 513-693-4028 kangmingma@eurofinsus.com

medium_TP-Biodiesel-Eurofins-0914.jpg

small_TP-Biodiesel-Eurofins-0914.jpg

thumbnail_TP-Biodiesel-Eurofins-0914.jpg

TP-Biodiesel-Eurofins-0914.jpg

Biodiesel producers are looking for a more effective analytical technology with constant monitoring directly at the critical test points. With all the advantages, Eurofins QTA in-line service will become a powerful analytical tool for producers. 

Eurofins QTA to Introduce In-Line  Analysis for Biodiesel Production

After several damaging cases of biodiesel RIN fraud were exposed in 2011 and 2012, it was clear something needed to be done to police the Wild West-like market and protect obligated parties and good-faith biodiesel producers alike from the crippling aftermath caused by a handful of bad actors. When the U.S. EPA issued its Quality Assurance Plan proposed ruling at the dawn of 2013, however, the consensus between the biodiesel and oil industries was that the program was too burdensome and costly.&nbsp; The proposal, which was uniquely a proposal and an implemented rule until the actual final rule was published, provided obligated parties an affirmative defense against civil liability for retiring invalid RINs, and included Option A, Option B, and the status quo “buyer beware” approach. While both options provided obligated parties with an affirmative defense against civil liabilities, they differed in which party in the chain would be responsible for replacing any retired invalid RINs if the generator of the invalid RIN were unable to. Under A, if the biodiesel producer were unable to replace invalid QAP-A RINs they generated, the proposal required the QAP auditor to bear the cost of replacement. Under B, the obligated party that retired the invalid QAP-B RINs would be responsible for replacement.&nbsp; Under the proposal, Option A was much more rigorous, comprehensive and costly compared to B. Option A required near real-time, ongoing auditing and reporting while quarterly auditing was all B demanded. QAP-A replacement by the auditor, as the proposed rule required, was to be backstopped by one or more replacement mechanisms: a RIN escrow account, a RIN bank or a financial instrument. There was also a replacement cap for auditors under A and a limited exemption for obligated parties under B. Option A limited the replacement obligation of the auditor to 2 percent of RINs they audit over a 5-year period. If the third-party verifier audits 100 million RINs, for instance, and 10 million are invalid, they would have to replace 2 million. Under Option B, there was a limited exemption for obligated parties (for 2013-’14 only) to not have to replace up to 2 percent of their total renewable volume obligation (RVO) if they retire invalid QAP-B RINs. This was put in the proposal to encourage obligated parties to buy RINs again, and if retired, invalid QAP-B RINs are 2 percent or less of their total RVO.&nbsp; The EPA’s Byron Bunker, who spoke at the 2013 National Biodiesel Conference shortly after the proposed rule was issued, said he expected both options to be included in the final rule. It turned out he was wrong.&nbsp; Final Rule The final QAP rule was issued in July—a year and a half after the proposal was published. In its final rule, the agency finalized both proposed QAP program options included in the proposed rule for an interim period from Feb. 21, 2013, through Dec. 31, 2014. Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, the program will consist of a single QAP option (Q-RINs). “Given the difficulty experienced by auditors in setting up Option-A QAPs, the apparent lack of use of the Option-A QAP in the interim period, and the overwhelmingly negative comments regarding Option-A by producers and obligated parties alike, we are not finalizing Option-A as a compliance alternative for use after the interim period,” the agency stated in its final rule. The single QAP option closely resembles the QAP-B option established in the proposal. After RIN fraud was exposed, the National Biodiesel Board formed a RIN Integrity Task Force that worked to establish recommendations for complementing the private-sector efforts with strengthened RFS requirements.&nbsp; The EPA’s new regulations incorporate many of the task force’s recommendations, including strong protections for obligated parties but also clear responsibilities, without any reduction in required volumes. The new program gives obligated parties an affirmative defense against civil penalties. However, it confirms that obligated parties still have ultimate responsibility for replacing RINs found to be invalid. Anne Steckel, NBB’s vice president of federal affairs, says allowing a complete affirmative defense, in which invalid RINs are not replaced, would have allowed the EPA to effectively “write off” required volumes, resulting in a de facto reduction in RFS volumes and less incentive for fraud prevention among obligated parties. Another aspect of the task force’s recommendations that were incorporated in the final rule is a streamlined QAP process that provides strong protections for RIN buyers while also avoiding costly, time-consuming red tape that would hurt biodiesel producers and obligated parties. Also, Steckel says the final rule includes strengthened auditing requirements with strong professional standards that ensure true independence for those parties charged with identifying fraud.&nbsp; “The major differences between the proposed and final rules are QAP types available and site visit frequency,” says Ashley Player, domestic QAP manager for Weaver. “The single QAP that will take effect Jan. 1 is almost identical to the QAP-B available during the interim period. EPA found, based on industry adoption during the interim period and feedback from QAP providers, producers and obligated parties, that the QAP-A option was not cost-effective. Likewise, EPA listened to industry concerns and elected to reduce the site visit requirements to biannually instead of quarterly.” Susan Olson, vice president of biofuels at Genscape Inc., says site visits are required twice a year without remote sensor monitoring and once a year with remote sensor monitoring. “EcoEngineers is pleased that the EPA included all of our recommendations to make the program simpler and more cost-effective for producers,” says Shashi Menon, managing partner at EcoEngineers. “The final version of the rules only has one QAP RIN type, a Q-RIN, as opposed to the A and B types in the proposed rules.” The final rule has also taken a strong and sensible stand on the issue of independence of third-party auditors, Menon says. Karyn Jones, chief operating officer and QAP manager at EcoEngineers, adds that the final rule removes the requirement that the auditor be a professional engineer.&nbsp; Regarding independent auditors, Olson says the final rule disallows RIN generators to be QAP auditors. “This appears to apply to RIN agents,” Olson says. The rule also establishes qualifications for independent third-party auditors, and sets requirements for audits of biofuel production facilities. According to RINtrust LLC, the auditor requirements in EPA’s final QAP rule indicate that the auditor cannot provide QAP and attestation services for the same facility; cannot generate RINs for the producer; must be independent from fuel producers; must have access to a professional engineer and a certified public accountant; and must have errors and omissions, or E&amp;O, insurance.&nbsp; Although the QAP-A portion of the program is being phased out, Olson says Genscape has been working on a commercial RIN replacement solution outside of the EPA’s program and plans to launch a commercial offering well ahead of the QAP-A phase out. “We listened to the industry and our clients, and recognized that there might be a better way to provide a RIN replacement solution,” Olson says. “The economics tell us that there is a place for RIN ‘insurance’ in the market.” Genscape will continue to provide QAP-A and QAP-B services until the programs are phased out and will transition its services to the new Q-RINs for 2015. “If&nbsp; [the EPA Moderated Transaction System] can accommodate Q-RINs before Jan. 1, 2015, then tagging of Q-RINs may become available before that time,” Olson adds. EcoEngineers says over the next few months, it will work with EPA to test and launch the new version of EMTS, which will qualify Q-RINs and provide the administrative updates required by QAP providers under the new rules, Jones says.&nbsp;&nbsp; During 2014-’16, the final rule’s limited exemption excuses 2 percent of an obligated party’s RVO from the requirement for RIN replacement if Q-RINs up to the 2 percent limit later turn out to be invalid. “This appears to be an annual exemption calculated by D-code through 2016,” Olson says. “The 2014 exemption appears to include the entire ‘interim period’ of QAP from Feb. 21, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2014.” According to RINtrust, the exemption is intended to make obligated parties more willing to buy RINs from smaller, less well-known biofuels producers whose RINs might otherwise hold a higher perceived risk than RINs from large producers. “While the voluntary QAP and ‘buyer beware’ market style shifts the financial burden of verifying RINs to the producers, it also helps to level the playing field for small producers,” says Pete Moss, president of Frazier, Barnes &amp; Associates and RINtrust member. “The Q-RIN program gives small producers the ability to demonstrate the validity of their RINs and to compete with larger producers.”&nbsp; The final rule also establishes minimum requirements for feedstock verification, the verification that volumes produced are consistent with the amount of feedstock processed, and verification that RINs are appropriately categorized.&nbsp; During the interim period, RINs verified under a preregistered QAP prior to July 2, 2014—the date the EPA issued its final rule—are valid, according to RINTrust; and A and B QAPs can be used to validate RINs until Jan. 1, 2015. “There are nuances to the new QAP rule,” Player says. “One of the more confusing aspects is the timeline of QAP implementation. If renewable fuel producers want to generate Q-RINs in EMTS on Jan. 1, they need to have passed a QAP A or B audit by that date. Prior to the effective date of the final rule,” which is Sept. 16, 2014, “RINs may be verified retrospectively, but after the effective date, auditors must verify RINs prospectively.” EPA wants QAP providers to review what has happened and anticipate what will happen, Player says. “If a QAP-B audit is completed on Oct. 20 based on activity in the third quarter, RINs generated after Oct. 20 by the producer will be B-RINs until Jan. 1, at which point they will be Q-RINs. The RINs generated before the QAP-B report was issued will not carry with them an affirmative defense or qualify for the limited exemption for obligated parties.”&nbsp; For biodiesel producers, RIN separation provisions do not change with the final rule. A producer may separate RINs from the corresponding volume of fuel if the party designates the neat renewable fuel or blend as transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel; and the neat renewable fuel or blend is used without further blending, in the designated form, as transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. Exportation of fuel with renewable content, for which the RINs were not retired, has become a major issue and one that EPA has addressed in its final QAP rule. “The EPA has clearly stated it now believes that any export of transportation fuels must have ‘contemporaneous’ proof that the transportation fuels are free of renewable fuels,” says Ramon Benavides, president and founder of Global Renewable Strategies and Consulting LLC. “Otherwise they will be declared as containing renewable fuels. This is a fantastic outcome because, in the event an exporter fails to obtain ‘contemporaneous’ evidence that the exported commodity did not contain a renewable element, then an export RVO is automatically assumed as default at 5 to 20 percent for diesel and a retirement is due in 30 days or less. However, it was not clear regarding gasoline’s CBOB or RBOB, but we believe those values would be assumed by oxygenate blend data and would apply as well. If this were to hold true, then the exports of diesel and gasoline would potentially invoke greater than 1.28 billion gallons of ethanol equivalency demand in addition to retirements for neat renewable fuels. Our initial assessment of EIA data suggests that the exporters will invoke an annual cost of no less than $32 million in additional testing, fees and compliance oversight. Otherwise, the cost through notices of violation would be greater than $250 million. The rule created a win for the renewable fuel sector that many have overlooked.” Final Perspectives “We believe the EPA did a good job of strengthening the audit requirements in the rule and streamlining the QAP program so that there are clear lines of responsibility, and all stakeholders can have confidence in RIN markets,” Steckel says. “It is a good rule that is in line with the private-sector protections that have already been put in place since these isolated criminal cases came to light several years ago. Together, this new rule and the private-sector programs offer significant new safeguards against RIN fraud and should ensure that it remains a thing of the past. We look forward to working with EPA on implementing this program.” One thing Steckel says the NBB advocated for but EPA did not include in its final rule is strong bonding requirements on RINs for imported fuels.&nbsp; “The QAP rule is a reasonable program that appears to be carefully constructed by the EPA in such a way that minimizes potential conflicts of interest by limiting the services that can be provided by a QAP service company,” Moss says. “The final rule accomplishes the goal of protecting buyers and obligated parties without unduly burdening producers. Given the relatively high value of RINs and the underlying potential for fraud, it is imperative that the renewable fuel industry strives to verify all RINs that are generated in a streamlined manner. Even though there is a cost associated with the verification process, both producers and obligated parties benefit from the increased due diligence. Over time, the cost of compliance should decline as a result of process efficiencies and increased competition.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Global Renewable Strategies and Consulting applauds the EPA for completing a complex voluntary Quality Assurance Program for the renewable fuel industry,” Benavides says. “The rule has a solid core for additional compliance and a rigid requirement for affirmative defense as requested by the obligated parties.” “The QAP rule is a major step towards developing stable RIN markets, and we are very pleased that the EPA has finalized these important rules,” Menon says. “Now there will be standard verification programs for RINs that will mitigate the risks of purchasing RINs of unknown origins. These rules will make the QAP program mainstream and it will become a standard feature of operating a renewable fuel facility.”&nbsp; “Obligated parties may be incentivized to purchase verified RINs in order to claim an affirmative defense against penalties on A-RINs, B-RINs, and Q-RINs and will receive a limited exemption for small quantities of B-RINs and Q-RINs that they use for compliance purposes,” says Player. “Biofuel producers should be prepared for questions from their customers about their QAP status, and these producers should know that achieving Q-RIN production capability will not happen overnight.”&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Author: Ron Kotrba Editor, Biodiesel Magazine 218-745-8347 rkotrba@bbiinternational.com

medium_Policy-Biodiesel-Maze-0914.jpg

small_Policy-Biodiesel-Maze-0914.jpg

thumbnail_Policy-Biodiesel-Maze-0914.jpg

Policy-Biodiesel-Maze-0914.jpg

Traversing the maze of U.S. EPA's proposed RIN Quality Assurance Plan was daunting, but after 16 months, the final rule provides a simpler pathway to getting markets back on track. 

QAP 2.0:  The Final Rule

If someone told me in January that we wouldn&rsquo;t see the final 2014 RFS volumes before the fall, I would have offered them a friendly wager otherwise. I would have lost. Here we are, nearly two-thirds through the year with the leaves beginning to turn, without a final rule establishing the volume of biodiesel that must be blended into the nation&rsquo;s fuel supply. With each passing week, our frustration grows. In talking with the biodiesel community throughout the year, I know the real-world, often painful impact this botched rulemaking has had. Well-paying jobs have been eliminated. Entrepreneurs have lost their businesses. And we&rsquo;ve lost ground on our national goals for a cleaner transportation sector and a healthier economy free from a dependence on global petroleum markets. None of this should have happened, and I want to assure you that we are fighting as hard as we possibly can on your behalf, every day, for a positive outcome as we move forward. The good news is that we believe we have made progress. Thanks to the grassroots advocacy campaign that you helped build, we have made an incredibly strong case to the EPA and the White House that turning away from America&rsquo;s most successful advanced biofuel is not in the nation&rsquo;s interests. From the start, the biodiesel community has been vocal and aggressive. We submitted at least 6,300 comments after the initial rule was proposed in November. We have held countless meetings with administration officials and organized a strong series of letter-writing campaigns, including one in which 120 biodiesel-related companies from across the country called on President Obama to improve the proposal. We engaged influential third-parties to weigh in with letters on our behalf, including state legislators from around the country and local elected officials such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff. We engineered an aggressive media campaign that saw dozens of op-eds, letters and news stories highlighting the damaging effects of the proposed rule, including many stories from a press conference held by a group of leading senators on Capitol Hill. In fact, we&rsquo;ve generated more congressional support than we&rsquo;ve ever had, with nearly 100 lawmakers from across the country calling for a higher biodiesel volume over the past year. Our efforts culminated recently when senior White House adviser John Podesta met with 10 senators from President Obama&rsquo;s own party about the biodiesel rule. The senators sharply criticized the administration&rsquo;s handling of the proposal and urged the administration to change course. By all accounts, the meeting was productive, and Podesta left the senators with the impression that the biodiesel volume should and will go up. That is consistent with signals sent publicly by several senior EPA leaders. However, we have no assurances that the final rule will include a meaningful increase in volume or, if so, to what extent the volume might rise. We believe there is no reason to retreat from the success that our industry has had in producing a record of more than 1.7 billion gallons last year, and we are continuing to call for that volume in the final rule. We also continue to urge Congress to reinstate the biodiesel tax incentive that expired this year, and while Congress is highly unpredictable, we are cautiously optimistic that lawmakers will take up tax extensions late in the year, starting with a package passed by the Senate Finance Committee in April that includes the biodiesel incentive. I want to thank all of you who have participated in our grassroots advocacy, and urge anyone who hasn&rsquo;t participated to get involved. We are a small industry, and the only way we can make an impression with Congress and the White House is with a strong, unified voice. If you have questions about how to get more involved, please don&rsquo;t hesitate to call our Washington office at 202-737-8801. We&rsquo;re always looking for new voices to help us tell the biodiesel story and are here to help connect you with your representatives in Washington. While I won&rsquo;t be taking any bets on timing, we do hope and expect that as this issue of Biodiesel Magazine hits newsstands, the EPA&rsquo;s rulemaking process will be drawing to a close. We will have plenty to discuss once it does &hellip; and then 2015 is just around the corner. Author: Anne Steckel, Vice President of Federal Affairs, National Biodiesel Board

Anne Steckel, Vice President of Federal Affairs, National Biodiesel Board

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Steckel-0914_14096710076954_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Steckel-0914_14096710076954_thumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Steckel-0914_14096710076954.jpg

As the leaves begin to turn, the biodiesel industry still waits for the 2014 final RFS rule. The National Biodiesel Board continues to fight for an increase in biodiesel volumes while simultaneously urging Congress to reinstate the tax credit. 

Fight Continues Through Frustrating RFS Uncertainty

Members of the National Biodiesel Board have numerous ways of guiding their organization throughout the year. One of the biggest opportunities comes every fall during the November membership meeting with the governing board elections. The 15 board members serve two-year terms that are staggered so each year there are either seven or eight terms expiring. This year in St. Louis, members will vote to fill seven seats. &ldquo;Being active and engaged in your industry&rsquo;s membership organization was a simple decision for me,&rdquo; said Steven J. Levy, current NBB chairman. &ldquo;The NBB brings together all segments of the biodiesel industry, collaborates, and then executes a clear path forward. There are many opportunities throughout the year for members&rsquo; input on the direction of the organization, but there is no greater level of engagement than serving on the governing board.&rdquo; The election committee appointed by Chairman Levy is currently seeking nominations from the membership to fill the seats and the full membership will vote in November. &ldquo;These leadership positions are critical to our industry and manageable in your current job,&rdquo; said Levy. &ldquo;The industry has faced tremendous challenges this year but is still in a position for long-term growth. Our collective efforts as a strong, unified industry have allowed us to survive the ups and downs of being a new fuel in the marketplace and our continued collaboration is necessary to continue to grow.&rdquo; The current board is comprised of a diverse cross section of the industry and includes members from large and small producers, marketers, renderers and soybean farmer leaders. Members are strongly encouraged to attend and vote for the candidates who will best serve the needs of the industry. While in St. Louis, NBB members will also discuss current industry issues, hold committee meetings, and review and update the organization&rsquo;s Resolutions and Position Handbook. For additional details about governing board positions or the upcoming membership meeting please contact Donnell Rehagen (drehagen@biodiesel.org) in the NBB office.

Members encouraged to run, vote in upcoming board election

The National Biodiesel Foundation hosted an immersive, four-day tour through Iowa for federal and state agency officials and U.S. congressional staffers. This year&rsquo;s &ldquo;Biofuels: Science &amp; Sustainability Tour&rdquo; brought representatives from eight states to Iowa to see first-hand biodiesel, ethanol and modern production agriculture. &ldquo;Coming from Iowa, the benefits of biodiesel have always been clear to me,&rdquo; said Evan Jurkovich, senior legislative assistant to Congressman Dave Loebsack. &ldquo;The biofuels tour only added emphasis to that and showed just how valuable the biodiesel industry is to our growing bioeconomy. What I thought was the most important part was seeing firsthand the high-skilled jobs this brings to our rural economies. It was great to see that the biodiesel and bioeconomy industries are here and very real right now and are only going to continue to grow, especially if a strong RFS is maintained.&rdquo; The group included staff members from Senate and House of Representative offices from both sides of the aisle representing Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, South Dakota and New Hampshire, along with a number of agencies. &ldquo;Spending four days with hard hats walking through production facilities, or waist deep in a soybean field talking about the sustainability of agriculture on a multigenerational farm is an extremely effective way to tell our industry&rsquo;s story,&rdquo; said Tom Verry, NBF executive director. &ldquo;The biodiesel foundation continues to sponsor and help host this tour for a reason. We see it as one of the best ways to educate and build champions in Washington, D.C.&rdquo; Attendees visited biodiesel producer Western Dubuque Biodiesel in Farley, Iowa, and heard presentations on production, policy, sustainability, economics and feedstock production from NBB staff. They also spent an afternoon at the farm of Ed Ulch, NBB board member and a past national winner of the American Soybean Association&rsquo;s Conservation Legacy Award. Other sponsors included the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, the Iowa Biodiesel Board, the Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa State University and other biofuels groups.

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-ISU-0914_1409671630776_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-ISU-0914_1409671630776_thumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-ISU-0914_1409671630776.jpg

The National Biodiesel Foundation hosted an immersive, four-day tour through Iowa for federal and state agency officials and U.S. congressional staffers. This year's tour brought representatives from eight states to witness renewable achievements. 

Biofuels tour educates through immersion

Federal funding is an important component of the biodiesel industry&rsquo;s resource pool, expanding opportunities for enhanced outreach, education and research. Among the most significant pathways to access federal funding is through the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. Federal program targets include:
&bull; Enhancing current efforts to collect and disseminate biodiesel information. &bull; Coordinating with other biodiesel educational or promotional programs. &bull; Creating a nationwide networking system to deliver biodiesel information to targeted audiences. &bull; Identifying and documenting the benefits of biodiesel. &bull; Addressing information gaps regarding biodiesel education. This is the third time the program has been open to applicants, and the third time NBB received a significant portion of the grant. If funds remain available, the grant will continue through 2018. The funding is made available through the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) and managed by the USDA&rsquo;s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.&nbsp; &ldquo;Awareness and consumption of biodiesel has grown over the past decade, but due to its higher costs, consumption is still lower than traditional diesel fuel,&rdquo; said Sonny Ramaswamy, NIFA director. &ldquo;There are many positive environmental, social and human health benefits that consumers can weigh when purchasing diesel fuel. This grant program will help consumers make informed decisions that will help our nation reduce our dependence on foreign oil.&rdquo; As directed by the grant, funding will focus on educational programs that will support advances in infrastructure, technology transfer, fuel quality, fuel safety and increasing feedstock production.

2014/09/newdollarsign-low_14103657458762_largethumb.JPG

2014/09/newdollarsign-low_14103657458762_thumb.JPG

2014/09/newdollarsign-low_14103657458762.JPG

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-USDA-0914_14096719879448.jpg

This is the third time the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, with funding available from the Farm Bill, has been open to applicants, and the third time NBB received a significant portion of the grant.

NBB wins bid for USDA grant funding

Congratulations are in order for an innovative educator who for years has used biodiesel as a key example in his curriculum to get students excited about science. While the biodiesel industry has recognized Darrin Peters of Rockwood Summit High School in Fenton, Mo., before, this time the recognition came from the president&rsquo;s desk. This fall Peters was recognized for his innovative biodiesel curriculum in his organic chemistry class, and for his efforts outside the classroom to organize an after-school biodiesel club to engage students through real-world, hands-on experience. Peters was honored with a Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators in a ceremony at the White House along with 16 other teachers from across the country. The award was presented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. EPA. &ldquo;These awards recognize the outstanding contributions of student leaders and exceptional teachers on some of the most pressing issues facing our nation, including combating climate change and instituting sustainability practices,&rdquo; said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. &ldquo;Environmental education encourages academic achievement, especially in the sciences, and develops the next generation of leaders in environmental stewardship.&rdquo; The National Biodiesel Board is very familiar with Peters&rsquo; efforts. Rockwood Summit High School sits roughly 100 miles from NBB&rsquo;s Jefferson City office, and NBB has closely followed the program and coordinated with them along the way. When NBB staff heard about the call for candidates, Peters was the first to come to mind. &ldquo;Darrin has done tremendous work for the biodiesel industry and for his students over the years,&rdquo; said Don Scott, NBB director of sustainability. &ldquo;We strongly encouraged him to apply for the award because it was such a great fit. We are so happy to see a biodiesel champion honored with such a prestigious award.&rdquo; The curriculum shows students how to use science to find solutions to solve local economic and global environmental issues and exposes them to potential career opportunities in their community. The students also learn about agricultural systems and how natural oils like soybean oil and recycled cooking oil can be used to produce renewable fuel from locally available feedstocks.

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Peters-0914_14096721122699_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Peters-0914_14096721122699_thumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Peters-0914_14096721122699.jpg

While the biodiesel industry has recognized Darrin Peters of Rockwood Summit High School in Fenton, Mo., before, this time the recognition came from the president's desk. He was recognized for his biodiesel-related work inside and outside the class. 

Biodiesel educator honored with Presidential Award

One of the most predictable dynamics of the growing biodiesel industry has been unpredictability, a constant evolution of the market and its ever-transforming challenges. Managing through the ups and downs of business cycles and market changes is a part of every business. But many would argue the biodiesel industry has had more than its fair share. One thing that is certain, however, is that the National Biodiesel Conference &amp; Expo is the place to be Jan. 19-22. &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t tell you today with certainty exactly what our industry&rsquo;s landscape will look like when we gather in Fort Worth in January, but what I do know is that this conference will be at the center of it all,&rdquo; said Joe Jobe, CEO of the National Biodiesel Board. &ldquo;It is the place to come hear directly from those at the top of our field where we are and where we might be going.&rdquo; The conference is specifically designed to gather biodiesel decision makers from throughout the U.S. and the world in one place for education, and to jumpstart the year&rsquo;s business. &ldquo;Every year I am impressed, not just by the quality content our team assembles but also by the business I see everywhere,&rdquo; said Jobe. &ldquo;You can&rsquo;t walk down a hall without seeing groups huddled together over deals that are surely defining the year ahead. It is the old-school town hall where all the serious actors come together to see and hear what the future will hold and to help shape it.&rdquo; Many uncertainties remain for the industry but the biodiesel conference is one constant. Year after year attendees, exhibitors and sponsors say that the investment of their time and money to participate return enormous value to their organizations. In fact, they say that it is the type of investment that they couldn&rsquo;t afford not to make. &ldquo;There is no question this is the biodiesel event of the year,&rdquo; Jobe added, &ldquo;only a question of whether you will be there to seize the opportunities that it offers.&rdquo; For more conference information visit <a href="http://www.biodieselconference.com">www.biodieselconference.com</a>.

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-NBB2015-0914_14096722515779_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-NBB2015-0914_14096722515779_thumb.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-NBB2015-0914_14096722515779.jpg

2014/09/NBB-Biodiesel-Conference2-0914_14096722497809.jpg

National Biodiesel Conference a certainty in shifting markets

The National Biodiesel Board is the national trade association representing America&rsquo;s first advanced biofuel. NBB works to create sustainable biodiesel industry growth through governmental affairs, education, communication, technical, and quality assurance programs. Serving as the coordinating body for research and development in the U.S., the organization is comprised of state, national and international feedstock and feedstock processor organizations, biodiesel producers, fuel marketers and distributors, and technology providers. NBB membership has grown significantly over the years from its start with seven members in 1992 to more than 200 member companies today. These companies vary from Fortune 100 companies to small, family-owned businesses. This diverse membership base has provided a strong foundation for growth with member companies representing nearly all 50 states.
No matter your involvement with the industry, NBB has a lot to offer. To find out how to become a member, visit <a href="http://nbb.org/join-us">http://nbb.org/join-us</a>. NBB Mission Statement: Representing America&rsquo;s first advanced biofuel, the NBB will advance the interests of its members by creating sustainable biodiesel industry growth. NBB serves as the U.S. biodiesel industry&rsquo;s central coordinating entity and will be the single voice for its diverse membership base. Industry success will be achieved through governmental affairs, communications, market development, technical, and quality assurance programs. We are dedicated to inclusiveness and integrity. For membership Information, please contact: Doug Whitehead Director of Operations and Membership 800-841-5849 dwhitehead@biodiesel.org

NBB: your membership organization

East Kansas Agri-Energy LLC plans to integrate renewable diesel production at its ethanol plant in Garnett, Kan., using distillers corn oil from the ethanol process and other feedstocks, the company announced in late July. WB Services is the integration and renewable diesel technology provider for the project. Construction on the 3 MMgy co-located renewable diesel plant is slated to begin soon and is expected to be completed in 12 to 14 months. &ldquo;This is about maximizing revenue, leveraging activities that we already do every day, and enhancing the value of products we already produce now,&rdquo; says EKAE President and CEO Jeff Oestmann. &ldquo;Adding renewable diesel capability aligns perfectly with our business strategy of diversifying our energy portfolio and creating additional enterprises that are sustainable on their own.&rdquo;

Kansas ethanol plant to co-locate renewable diesel facility on-site

The Oregon Department of Agriculture has sent notices to approximately 417 retail fuel establishments throughout the state reminding them that diesel fuel blended with 6 to 20 percent biodiesel may not to be marketed as &ldquo;diesel,&rdquo; by law. The notice is in response to consumer complaints received by ODA&rsquo;s Motor Fuel Quality Program. &ldquo;We have investigated a number of consumer complaints alleging that certain retail fuel establishments are advertising diesel on their street signs at a significant discount relative to the competition,&rdquo; says Steve Harrington, ODA&rsquo;s Weights and Measures program manager. &ldquo;When the consumer pulls in to fill up, they find out they are getting B20 and not the normal B5 diesel. B20 does not meet the legal specification for diesel and may not be marketed as such.&rdquo; During the 2013 Oregon legislative session, HB 2435 was passed, which exempts diesel fuel blended with a minimum of 20 percent biodiesel (B20), derived from used cooking oil, from the state highway excise tax on fuel, which is 30 cents per gallon. In response, ODA has sent out a notice addressed to all gas stations having licensed dispensers, both retail and card lock, advising them of the legal requirements for advertising B20. Essentially, B20 is required to be clearly advertised both on the street signs and dispensers so that the consumer may make an informed buying decision. If the prominent markings on the dispenser indicate that the product is diesel, then the product must meet the diesel specification or it will be ordered off sale by ODA until the product labeling is corrected.

2014/09/FE-biodiesel-pumphandle-0914_14096824932342_largethumb.jpg

2014/09/FE-biodiesel-pumphandle-0914_14096824932342_thumb.jpg

2014/09/FE-biodiesel-pumphandle-0914_14096824932342.jpg

Biodiesel labeling rule clarified to Oregon retailers

Third-generation oilman Brian Potter spoke at the 2014 Collective Biodiesel Conference in Pittsboro, N.C., about how Potter Oil &amp; Tire Co. Inc., a 60-plus-year-old North Carolina-based fuel wholesaler and biodiesel distributor servicing the Mid-Atlantic region, selects its biodiesel suppliers, and his company&rsquo;s views on the biodiesel industry. Potter said his company got its start in biodiesel back in 2002, offering B2, B5 and eventually B20 to North Carolina through state contracts. He said the distribution business has two sides, retail and commercial. Potter said for the most part the retail side doesn&rsquo;t want to deal with RINs and they want product that&rsquo;s already blended. The commercial distribution side, of which Potter Oil is a part, is a &ldquo;penny business,&rdquo; said Potter, where gross profit margins are less than 1 percent, requiring commercial distributors to be &ldquo;lean and mean.&rdquo; Potter said his company purchases fuel from up to 10 plants, and when selecting a biodiesel supplier, BQ-9000 certification tops his list. He said not only should a Certificate of Analysis be present with every shipment of biodiesel, but it should also have a recent date. &ldquo;If the date on the C of A is six months old, then something&rsquo;s not right,&rdquo; he said. For cold soak, Potter said his company likes to see 100 seconds year-round. Selling biodiesel isn&rsquo;t just about fuel transactions, Potter said. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not about selling a load of biodiesel,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;but it&rsquo;s about trying to build a relationship. Sometimes we lose money on biodiesel just to keep the customer.&rdquo; Plants that Potter Oil buys biodiesel from must have adequate finished product storage, he said, in order to be able to quickly move in and out, and plant location is important. A biodiesel plant&rsquo;s ability to transition between high and low cloud point feedstock and fuel with the season is also critical to his company&rsquo;s desire to do business with them. Pricing structure must be competitive with diesel fuel, Potter noted, adding that it&rsquo;s vital for Potter Oil to be able to buy product at a locked-in price for three months forward. This allows him to forward sell the RINs, too. Potter listed specific issues he has encountered with large and small biodiesel plants. Delays in shipping, railcar demurrage, having payment due prior to delivery, and product quality are just a few of the sticking points Potter Oil has had to overcome in dealing with large-volume plants. For small-volume biodiesel plants, Potter said the issues that can affect his business include the volatile productivity, wherein the plant is producing and not producing at inconvenient or inconsistent intervals. Waiting for feedstock is another problem he has seen with small plants. Finally, he said small plants often don&rsquo;t actually produce the product until it&rsquo;s sold. &ldquo;We can&rsquo;t operate like that,&rdquo; Potter said. &ldquo;We have to roll, roll, roll.&rdquo; While Potter Oil sells all kinds of biodiesel blends, a majority of what it sells is B20. The company&rsquo;s biodiesel sales are split 50/50 between state/municipality contracts and the private sector. Potter Oil splash blends all its biodiesel. Potter&rsquo;s opinion on the future of the biodiesel industry is that &ldquo;the big guys&rdquo; are going to be moving more toward renewable diesel production, and &ldquo;local production, long-term, is where this industry will stay.&rdquo;

Oilman discusses biodiesel issues, distribution at CBC event

Nestled in the sparsely populated mountains of Western North Carolina is a cutting-edge research facility practicing applied industrial ecology. The Catawba County EcoComplex, co-located with the 800-acre Blackburn Landfill, underscores the importance of co-location and resource utilization to produce renewable energy with minimal carbon intensity. A tour spot for the 2014 Collective Biodiesel Conference co-hosted by Piedmont Biofuels and Central Carolina Community College in Pittsboro, N.C., the Catawba County EcoComplex, two-and-a-half hours west of the conference location, features 3 megawatts of electricity production from landfill gas, oilseed growth on 150 acres of buffer land, a 4-ton-per-day mechanical crush plant and a 130,000-gallon-per-year biodiesel production center, both of which are fed electricity and process heat and steam from the landfill. The EcoComplex also has a dynamometer to measure biodiesel emissions, taking the energy cycle full circle. Jeremy Ferrell, an associate professor at Appalachian State University, is operations manager at the Catawba County EcoComplex and is one of the brains behind its development. Leading the tour of the facility, Ferrell said the Blackburn Landfill was Jenbacher’s first test site for landfill gas to energy in 1999. The site, tied to the power grid, pulls in $300,000 to $400,000 a year in electricity sales. Ferrell said the project was born from waste reduction laws passed by the state legislature. Today, the landfill has 2.7 million tons in place and has a useful life of 70 years. Catawba County built the EcoComplex without tax dollars. Instead, the county borrowed money from the landfill’s post-closure fund accumulated from a small fraction of the tipping fees. The Blackburn Landfill uses 1,500 to 1,700 gallons of diesel fuel a week in its operations, and the biodiesel produced on-site is blended at 20 percent to fuel the landfill and county government vehicles. Ferrell said the triple helix model, where government, universities and private businesses coalesce to share costs and resources, is an optimal framework within which to develop projects such as the EcoComplex. The site is adjacent to two private firms, a pallet company and a lumber mill, to facilitate future growth in partnership with Appalachian State University and Catawba County. Gasification and multifeed anaerobic digester projects at the EcoComplex are in the planning phases, and wood waste from the adjacent businesses is poised to provide feedstock for the future projects. When industrial ecology practices are applied to methyl ester production, soy biodiesel can have a lower carbon intensity than that produced from waste vegetable oil in a traditional manner, Ferrell said. Despite the environmental benefits realized from the EcoComplex, Ferrell said the small scale of the crush and biodiesel operations makes profitability a challenge. “The economics were marginal when the RIN was high and the dollar [tax credit] was in,” he said during the tour. “Now we’re losing money to crush seed.” He added that at this scale, the EcoComplex would need $1.20 per gallon in subsidies just to break even. The financial challenges of small-scale biodiesel economics, along with the social and environmental benefits of community-scale production, were just a few of the many topics discussed at this year’s Collective Biodiesel Conference held Aug. 14-17. The tour of the Catawba County EcoComplex preceded two days of dialogue, presentations and activities. Biodiesel-powered transportation from Pittsboro to the Catawba County EcoComplex and back was provided by Durham-based Greenway Transit.

MECHANICAL EXTRACTION: The crush facility features four 1-ton-per-day seed presses, where oilseeds grown on 150 acres of landfill buffer land are processed. 

2014/09/FE-Biodiesel-crush-mill-0914_14096759394226.jpg

FULL CIRCLE: The EcoComplex features a dynamometer for emissions testing of vehicles running on biodiesel produced next door. 

2014/09/FE-Biodiesel-dynamometer-0914_14096759401534.jpg

TOUR GUIDE: Jeremy Ferrell, an associate professor at Appalachian State University, is operations manager at the Catawba County EcoComplex. Behind him is a 1,000-gallon biodiesel reactor. 

September/October 2014

Columns

QUALITY, TESTING & STANDARDS

Legal Liabilities for Sale, Shipment of Off-Spec Biodiesel

Eurofins QTA to Introduce In-Line Analysis for Biodiesel Production

Featured

A New Era of Technical Leadership

QAP 2.0: The Final Rule

Contributions

US Army Corps of Engineers Powers Floating Plants with Biodiesel

September/October 2014.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Columns

QUALITY, TESTING & STANDARDS

Legal Liabilities for Sale, Shipment of Off-Spec Biodiesel

Eurofins QTA to Introduce In-Line Analysis for Biodiesel Production

Featured

A New Era of Technical Leadership

QAP 2.0: The Final Rule

Contributions

US Army Corps of Engineers Powers Floating Plants with Biodiesel

September/October 2014