Resolution 11-11RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
Inc.. Form No.3 6
Resolution No.
11 -11
Passed 1 20
A RESOLUTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE
BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 8.04 ("CONTRACTING PROCEDURES "),
PARAGRAPH (C) ( "WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE
BIDDING ") FOR THE PURCHASE OF DIESEL FUEL,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH MARION OIL.
WHEREAS, Section 8.04(c) of the Revised Dublin Charter authorizes City Council,
by a vote of no less than five (5) members, to waive competitive bidding requirements
if Council determines that an item is available and can be acquired only from a single
source or when it is in the best interest of the City to do so; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of Dublin to purchase diesel fuel for use by
the City of Dublin, Dublin City Schools and Washington Township; and
WHEREAS, the one -year purchase of a newly developed High Performance Clean
Diesel (HPCD) fuel will provide the opportunity to validate the fuel efficiency and
emissions of this new fuel; and
WHEREAS, the one -year purchase and validation of this newly developed fuel will
assist a Dublin- based, start-up green technology company to develop and grow their
business in Dublin: and
WHEREAS, Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to waive
competitive bidding for this project; and
WHEREAS, Council has determined that the cost estimate of 15 cents /gallon above
current state contract fuel pricing for this product is fair and appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, _q_ of the elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Competitive bidding requirements are hereby waived for the procurement
of High Performance Clean Diesel Fuel.
Section 2 . The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a one -year agreement
with Marion Oil for the purchase of High Performance Clean Diesel Fuel.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force on the earliest date
permitted by law.
Passed this LHday of hq ar - C ,_J 1 2011.
Mayor - ' Zil _ Officer
ATTEST:
f;w /
Clerk of Council
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614 - 410 -4400
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager`s
Date: March 24, 2011
Initiated By: Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative Services
Memo
Re: Resolution 11 -11 Waiving Competitive Bidding and Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Marion Oil for
the Purchase of Diesel Fuel.
Summary
Resolution 11 -11 proposes a one -year agreement with Marion Oil for the purchase of High
Performance Clean Diesel (HPCD). HPCD is a newly developed fuel created by Eco Chem
Alternative Fuels, a Dublin - based, green technology start-up company. This resolution will enable
the City to purchase HPCD in order to validate the fuel efficiency and emissions of this diesel fuel
for a one -year period. The validation process will occur through a partnership between the City of
Dublin, Dublin City Schools and Washington Township, testing school buses, medic units and City
vehicles.
Two previous memorandums related to this proposed project are attached, providing greater detail
related to the validation process and partnership among the City, Dublin City Schools and
Washington Township. In addition to these entities, several other organizations have also expressed
an interest in testing the HPCD fuel. The City and Eco Chem plan to meet with these organizations
in the next few weeks to discuss possibilities for a second round of testing and validation.
Due to the fact that the City of Dublin purchases fuel based on state contract pricing, Council is
required to waive competitive bidding in order for the City to purchase HPCD from Marion Oil, the
sole supplier of HPCD. The cost for HPCD is 15 cents /gallon above the state contract price;
however, it is anticipated that the additional cost will be negated by the gains in fuel efficiency
(increase in miles /gallon). Initial testing has shown a 16% increase in fuel efficiency. An
approximate 5% increase in fuel efficiency would be considered a break -even point for cost recovery
(based on a $3.00 /gallon cost for diesel).
Marsha Grigsby will be attending the Dublin School Board meeting on March 28 to discuss several
City projects and has offered to answer any questions the School Board may have related to this
partnership at that time. Michelle Crandall will provide a brief overview of this project to City
Council on March 28.
Recommendation
Staff recommends passage of Resolution 11 -11. Should you have questions regarding this
memorandum, please contact Michelle Crandall at 410 -4403 (desk) or 206 -4886 (mobile).
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Memo
CITY OF DUBLIN_ Phone: 614 -410 -4400 • Fax: 614- 410 -4490 M e 1 1 1 O
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager
Date: March 10, 2011
Initiated By: Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative Services
Re: Proposed Purchase of Eco Chem Diesel Fuel
Summary
In September 2010, staff provided Council with an overview of a newly developed diesel fuel
being produced by Eco Chem Alternative Fuels, LLC. Eco Chem is a start-up company based in
the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center's (DEC) green integrator. [Attached is the memorandum
prepared for Council in September, which provides greater detail related to the potential
advantages of Eco Chem's High Performance Clean Diesel (HPCD), as well as the documented
disadvantages associated with the City's currently used Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD).]
At that time, the City was in discussions with the Dublin City Schools to test HPCD in order to
validate Eco Chem's claims that the fuel would increase fuel efficiency by more than 5% and
reduce emissions by more than 15 -20 %. The Dublin City Schools expressed several concerns
regarding validation of the HPCD, including the fact that the fuel had not been significantly
tested in other vehicles and a private company profiting from such tests.
As discussions continued with the Schools, Eco Chem began testing the fuel in several fuel
delivery vehicles. These tests, which took place between early November 2010 and late January
2011 showed promising results. Results indicated a 16% average improvement in fuel
efficiency, a 21% average reduction in NOx (nitrogen oxides), and a 53% average reduction in
HC (hydrocarbons). It is important to note that, due to driver log errors, the fuel efficiency data
cannot be considered scientifically valid (as indicated in the attached validation study results);
however, the results are compelling enough to warrant further testing in a more controlled
environment. Results were gathered and analyzed by Mike Long, P.E. of Resource 100. Mr.
Long's overview and validation results are attached.
Results of these tests have been shared with the Dublin City Schools. Staff has discussed with
the Schools the City's interest in purchasing HPCD for a 12 -month period to further validate the
fuel. Due to the fact that there is an increased cost of 15 cents /gallon for the HPCD, staff also
shared with the Schools fuel efficiency goals that would need to be met to achieve a "break -
even" point. Essentially, the HPCD fuel would need to result in greater than 5% fuel efficiency
to reach this break even point. Any results greater than 5% would bring a cost savings. Based
on the previously noted results indicating a 16% increase in fuel efficiency, staff believes this is
a safe risk. To further reduce the risk involved, Eco Chem has committed $20,000 to the parties
using the fuel (City, Schools, Washington Township) if the 5% fuel efficiency goal is not met.
Memo re. Proposed Purchase of Eco Cliem Diesel Fuel
March 10, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Although this would not completely offset increased costs, it lowers the break even calculation to
a 3% increase in fuel efficiency.
On March 8, 2011, Eco Chem, Marion Oil and Resource 100 began working with the Dublin
City Schools on the initial validation of the currently used ULSD. An agreement has not yet
been executed to include validation of the HPCD, but City staff is cautiously optimistic that the
Schools will now partner in the validation process. This validation process would be closely
monitored to ensure scientifically valid results. Over the course of the next several months, the
City, Schools and Township would all be able to analyze whether use of HPCD results in
increased fuel efficiency, reduced emissions and better vehicle performance. Successful results
would allow EcoChem to begin marketing their fuel and expanding their business in Dublin.
At Council's March 28 meeting, staff plans to propose legislation allowing the City to enter into
a twelve -month agreement with Marion Oil (Eco Chem's sole distributor) for the purchase of
High Performance Clean Diesel. Due to the fact that the City purchases fuel through state
contract pricing, this purchase would require a waiver of competitive bidding.
Recommendation
For information only. Should you have any questions, please contact Michelle Crandall at 410-
4403 (desk) or 206 -4886 (mobile).
(ATY OF DDeIIN
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone: 614- 410 -4400
To: Dublin City Council
From: Marsha Grigsby, Interim City Manager L_
Date: September 23, 2010
Initiated By: Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative Services
Re: Testing of Clean Diesel Fuel
Memo
Summary
Over the past several weeks, City of Dublin and Dublin City Schools staff members have been
meeting with EcoChem Alternative Fuels, LLC to discuss a partnership to test and validate the
benefits ofEcoChem's newly developed High Performance Clean Diesel (HPCD) fuel.
EcoChem is a start -up company based in the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center (DEC). Through the
use of several mechanical processes and a fuel additive, the company has developed a fuel that
EcoChem claims will increase fuel efficiency by more that 5% and will reduce emissions by more
than 15 -20 %. The proprietary mechanical processes remove particulates, sludge (bacteria) and
water from the fuel, allowing the fuel to burn "cleaner." The additive increases the lubricity of the
fuel, helping to minimize wear in the fuel delivery system.
Aside from fuel efficiency and emission reductions, the fuel could address issues that have been
seen in the fleet maintenance industry related to the 2006 EPA - mandated use of ultra -low sulfur
diesel (ULSD). The process developed by EcoChem to remove water and other foreign matter from
the fuel should result in fewer occurrences of corrosion in storage tanks, clogged filters and other
fuel related mechanical issues. Attached is an article from the September /October issue of
Government Fleet which provides greater detail regarding issues believed to be associated with
ULSD.
Prior to being able to mass produce, distribute and sell the fuel, EcoChem must conduct validity
testing to prove fuel efficiency and emission reductions. School hoses are excellent for this type of
testing due to the fact that there is consistency in daily routes, distance traveled and average
miles /gallon. In total, 12 buses will be used for this validation project. For the first four weeks, all
12 buses will run on the City's current ultra -low sulfur diesel. During the second four weeks, six of
the 12 buses will use the newly developed High Performance Clean Diesel fuel. Data will be
gathered on fuel usage, distance traveled and emissions for each vehicle. A third party, Resource
100, will be gathering this data from the Dublin Schools and City of Dublin staff, and will
independently compile and analyze the results.
Should this fuel prove to increase fuel efficiency by 5% or more and significantly reduce emissions,
use of this fuel in both City of Dublin and Dublin City Schools vehicles would be beneficial from
both an economic and an environmental standpoint. Furthermore, successful testing results would
allow EcoChem to begin marketing their fuel and expanding their business in Dublin.
Memo re. Testing of Clean Diesel Fuel
September 23, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Over the next week, the City of Dublin, the Dublin City Schools and EcoChem will finalize the
testing details and a joint agreement among the three parties. Assuming there is agreement among
the three parties, the testing should begin soon thereafter. Staff will keep Council apprised of the
progress and results of this fuel validation process.
Recommendation
For information only. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Michelle
Crandall at 410 -4403 (desk) or 206 -4886 (mobile).
By Mike Antich
UNANTICIPATED
TRADE -OFFS
he EPA mandated the
introduction of ul-
tra low sulfur diesel
(ULSD), effective June I, 2006.
Since then, there has been an
uptick in reports of fuel - related
problems. Recurring complaints
are corrosion in storage tanks
and dispensing systems contain-
ing ULSD, onboard vehicle fuel
tank corrosion, clogged filters,
and seal and gasket deteriora-
tion. "I've been around diesel
equipment most of my life and
clearly we have seen a signifi-
cant spike in fuel - related issues
within the past three to four
years, including the identifica-
tion of particles that appear to
be pieces of rust in fuel samples,
in addition to increased bacteria,
microbes, and water," said one
fleet manager.
Similarly, some OEMs re-
port field issues with corrosion
of steel fuel tanks on vehicles.
"We don't know if it is related
to ultra low sulfur diesel or not,
but it has correlated with its in-
troduction," said one OEM en-
gineer, who wished to remain
anonymous. "Since ULSD
came out, we have seen more
of an issue with fuel tank cor-
rosion and fuel filter clogging,
but we don't know definitively
if it is being caused by ULSD
or by poor quality biodiesel.
The fuel tank corrosion seems
to occur more in the Southeast.
We're not sure what's causing
these issues, but we've definite-
ly seen more in the last couple
of years than before:'
POSSIBLE SOURCES
EPA standards require ultra
low sulfur diesel to contain no
more than 15 parts per million
of sulfur. One consequence to
the reduction of sulfur, accord-
ing to some in the industry, is
that it creates a more favorable
environment for microbes and
bacteria to develop and thrive.
Some fleet managers are con-
cerned ULSD may increase
the incident of microbial con-
tamination. These fleets report
a higher degree of water con-
tamination in storage tanks
and vehicle tanks. Microbes
depend on this water to live
and the "rood hydrocarbons"
found in diesel fuel to prolifer-
ate. Few microbes actually pro-
liferate in the fuel itself, but do
depend on the hydrocarbons in
diesel fuel for nutrition. Once
the contamination process be-
gins, it will quickly accelerate
while the fuel is stored. Mi-
crobes will immediately start
to grow in water, which will
ultimately expand into a grow-
ing colony. The colony pro-
duces acids that corrode metal
parts in the fuel tank and fuel
systems. Another contributing
factor to contaminated diesel
has been the introduction of
biodiesel. Some organic blends
of biodiesel have been found
to accelerate bacteria and mi-
crobe growth.
As bacteria and fungi re-
produce, they form biomass,
which accumulates at the
fuel -water interface, on tank
surfaces, and on filters. The
development of biomass is a
direct consequence of micro-
bial growth, but its effect on
fuel systems is mostly indirect.
As the metabolic waste from
the biomass and dead cells
ULSD?
accumulate, they settle out as
sludge at the bottom of a fuel
tank. If not treated, the colony
will grow very rapidly in a
fuel storage tank and produce
as much as several pounds of
sludge per week. The sludge
not only gums up storage and
dispensing tanks, it can also be
transferred to the vehicle's fuel
tank. As a result, vehicle fuel
filters may become clogged.
The first symptom of this is re-
duced filter -life. Occasionally,
catastrophic failures may oc-
cur, such as engine shutdown
due to fuel starvation.
In most cases, contaminants
are "imported" into a vehicle's
fuel system. For instance, be-
fore ULSD fuel reaches the
dispensing pump, it may be
transferred from three to six
storage tanks and /or trucks.
At every point along the way,
the fuel usually absorbs small
amounts of water and contami-
nation. Also, some companies
do not "top off" their storage
tanks and keep a minimum
amount of fuel on hand. The
reduced fuel volume maxi-
mizes the surface area of the
tanks to produce condensation.
Another factor that contributes
to both microbe growth and
water accumulation is how fast
fuel is run through storage and
dispensing tanks. Generally,
problems decrease with higher
volume.
Once condensation and
microbes become an issue,
fleet managers must remediate
(pomp out tanks) and filter the
fuel. Once you have microbes,
it is almost impossible to com-
pletely eliminate them. You
must treat your storage tanks.
FUEL TRADE -OFFS
ULSD is designed to de-
crease emissions and prevent
sulfur damage to diesel par-
ticulate filters (DPF), which
need to be cleaned of ash ev-
ery 150,000 to 300,000 miles,
depending on application. In
pre-2007 engines, the ash was
primarily created by oil addi-
tives needed to protect engine
components from sulfuric acid.
Since ULSD has only 15 parts
per million of sulfur, it allows
the use of 0 -4 engine oil,
which doesn't contain these
additives to protect against sul-
furic acid, and, as a result, gen-
erates less ash and maximizes
DPF cleaning intervals.
However, there are trade-
offs. ULSD costs a few cents
more per gallon and contains
1 -2 percent less energy. The
refining process that removes
the sulfur also removes high -
energy aromatics, which corre-
sponds to a 1 -2 percent increase
in fuel consumption.
What has the industry
scratching its "collective head"
is the chronological correlation
between the uptick in fuel -re-
lated problems in diesel trucks
and the introduction of ULSD.
Is there a connection between
the two? Although highly con-
troversial, some are asking:
Are the increased incidents of
microbial contamination and
fuel tank corrosion unantici-
pated trade -offs for the use and
storage of ULSD?
Let me know what you
think.
mike.antich @bobit.conn
48 Government Fleet September /October2010
Government Fleets September- October http: / /gf.epubxpress.com
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF 42HPCD VS. 42ULSD
(PREPARED BY MIKE LONG, P.E. — RESOURCE 100)
•
Eco CHEM ALTERNATIVE FUELS (ECO -CHEM) IS DUBLIN -BASED refining technology
company that produces a new high performance "green" diesel fuel. Green, because it
claims to reduce particulates and NOx as well as improved engine performance and MPG
thus reducing reliance on foreign oil.
• Eco CHEM is a tenant in the Dublin Entrepreneurial Center (DEC) as part of the "Green
Integrator ". The City of Dublin has interest in validating their claims with a goal of
aiding the growth and development of a Dublin company in the "green" fuel industry as
well as reducing the long -term operating costs of motor vehicles for Dublin and its
partners.
• The fuel is not an additive but a new High Performance Clean Diesel fuel that is
produced by the proprietary processing of #2 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel.
• Eco Chem at their own expense and with the assistance of Jim Bowman of Marion Oil
and the Central Ohio Farmer's Fuel Co -Op performed preliminary testing of the #2HPCD
as compared to conventional #2ULSD and #2ULSD with additives to reduce gelling of
the fuel in very cold weather.
• The testing occurred between early November of 2010 and late January 2011.
• The testing consisted of determining changes in fuel economy (MPG) between the two
fuels and tailpipe "sniff' testing to determine changes in HC and NO emissions. The
primary data collected was date of fill, gallons and mileage.
• Marion Oil contracted with Resource 100 LTD (Michael D. Long, P.E.) to perform
statistical analysis and report on the results.
• Six trucks were monitored over this period. For one of the trucks ( #11) the HPCD data
was not collected and another truck ( #4) the ULSD data was not collected. Both of these
trucks were eliminated by Mr. Long from any comparative fuel analysis.
• Results are as follows:
1. There was a measurable reduction of over 20 percent in NOx for all of the trucks. The
statistical significance needs to be determined with more sampling. The results for each
truck are shown in the attached charts.
2. There was a measurable reduction of over 60 percent in HC emissions in 5 of the 6
trucks. For the other truck ( #11) there was no change. The statistical significance of the
results needs to be determined with more sampling. An investigation should also be made
of the nature of Truck 11's performance. It should be noted that it also had the lowest
reduction in NOx. The results for each truck are shown in the attached charts.
3. There were apparent errors in the recording of data necessary to determine changes in
fuel economy. This included missing data points and errors in logs recording mileage.
This is the reason for eliminating two trucks mentioned above. In addition, it is not
possible to perform a "true" statistical analysis since that would require the ability to
calculate the exact MPG for each fill of each truck; something that could not be
accomplished with confidence. To overcome this shortcoming, the average MPG over all
of the tests for each fuel type was calculated. This approach will nullify any intermediate
errors in recording mileage.
4. Base on the above approach, the MPG was calculated for 4 trucks and summarized in
the attached table. The data was analyzed for the #2ULSD, the #2ULSD with additives
and the #2HPCD. Directionally it can be seen that the additive fuel performs better than
the ULSD alone. More importantly, the #2HPCD without any additive (and cost)
performed 16 % better on a fleet average than the #2ULSD. Again, there is no statistical
significance attached to these results; but there is an apparent trend towards better fuel
economy with the HPCD. As with the pollution measures, more data in a controlled
experiment is necessary to validate these results.
• In conclusion:
1. The HPCD seems to have positive benefits in terms of reducing pollution and
improving fuel economy over #2ULSD.
2. The results of this short-term testing is so compelling due to the apparent magnitude of
the results and consistency to deserve long -term testing in a very controlled environment
and exercising great care over the protocol for data collection.
Farmers Fuel Validation Project
Fuel E
Fuel Economy (MPG)
Fleet Average
®®�®
Truck 00 4.5 MPG 5.3 MPG 7.7 MPG
Truck 01 9.0 MPG 8.4 MPG 11.1 MPG
Truck 06 7.8 MPG 8.0 MPG 8.3 MPG
Truck 10 3.9 MPG 5.7 MPG 5.1 MPG
Total miles driven 8,530.7 9,433.1 11,824.0
Total gal fuel consumed 1,358.2 1,350.6 1,621.4
Fleet Average MPG 6.3 7.0 7.3 (16% increase
in MPG)
>n,rysrsevv,cn, -
.� 13, 20
rpe,,,a a3, zou
Farmers Co -Op Fuel
Validation Project
Exhaust gas Parameters
Average Percent Change
#2 ULSD vs. #2 HPCD
00
-23
-78
01
-14
-45
04
-31
-50
06
-33
-80
10
-21
-62
11
-5
-0
Average
-21
-53
�Agalys6 by Michael D. Lung
�y Fe:uurteloo LID
��5 February 6, 2011