E85
dispensers become topic of concern
Brooke Tacker, posted Nov. 9, 2006
Driving down Old U.S. Highway 63, Monday, Oct. 23, one might
have noticed big orange road barrels blocking off a section
of the Break Time service station’s gas pump area at
1416 Old 63 South. The E85 slot on the price board was blank.
E85, fuel containing 85-percent ethanol, was temporarily unavailable
due to repair.
“We were advised that the fuel lines in use at this
store may not be compatible long-term with E85,” Jackie
Maxwell, who is in charge of all Columbia Break Time stations,
said. “So, we made the decision to replace the fuel
lines.”
Skimming through the New York Times Thursday, Oct. 26, one
might have noticed an article that announced Underwriters
Laboratories Incorporated’s decision Oct. 5 to temporarily
withdraw authorization for the UL-approved label on parts
used in E85 dispensers. UL, a private product-safety testing
group, said research showed that E85 could eat away at metal
and plastic parts in pumps used to dispense it.
This decision came as a shock to Phillip Lampert, executive
director of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. The fact
that E85 could cause corrosion to certain parts of the dispenser
has always been known by the NEVC and Lampert had the impression
that UL was aware of this knowledge all along.
“We’ve been advancing the use of E85 for 14 years,”
Lampert said. “We never tried to cover up the fact that
high-level blends of ethanol do no react well with aluminum.
We’ve always known that.”
Aluminum mixed with high levels of ethanol, like E85, can
cause rusting. E85-fuel dispensers instead require a steel,
copper or zinc piping system. NEVC requires one of these three
types of dispensers when opening a new E85 station.
Lampert explained that whenever NEVC provides financial support
to any new E85 supplier, they require them to sign a document
saying they understand the dispensers cannot use aluminum.
“The last thing we want to have is a failure, a leak
into the environment or people harmed,” Lampert said.
In the follow-up memo published by UL to better explain its
Oct. 5 decision, UL claims the reason for the authorization
ban was in response to “the need to establish consistent
and appropriate safety requirements for E85 dispensers and
components.” However, UL also added they have never
certified a dispenser for use with E85.
These two claims combined with the action of withdrawing UL
authorization of E85 dispensers caused an unnecessary uproar
and negative reaction to the use of E85.
“Since that time, some local fire safety officials have
shut down public E85 fueling stations based on the fact that
no UL-certified equipment now exists,” according to
an article published on Agriculture Online Mon. Oct. 30.
Columbus, Ohio is one example of an area where E85 pumps were
shut down for this reason, Lampert said.
“We are now trying to put out a firestorm of concern,”
Lampert said.
NEVC is now having problems opening a new E85 station in Oakland
Park, Kan. because of the UL announcement.
The part that goes unnoticed, but not unmentioned on both
sides is the fact that there has been no evidence. No evidence
showing that the use of E85, if used in appropriate dispensers
like aluminum, has ever caused problems.
There have been no reported problems from E85 dispenser users.
“UL has no evidence of field issues related to this
application,” the original Oct. 5 UL memo said.
This is what has caused the people at NEVC so much confusion.
Lampert did not understand why UL had issued the announcement
in the first place. This was not anything new and no new developments
had been reported regarding the situation.
“There has never been issued any evidence of failure
or any degradation of failure,” Lampert said.
UL co-sponsored an E85 Compatibility Technical Forum on Nov.
1-2 with the U.S. Department of Energy to obtain additional
advice pertaining to the UL establishing safety criteria for
E85 dispensers.
