IC Bus Wins North Carolina Contract

Several weeks ago, we wrote in this space about the possibility of Blue Bird grabbing the North Carolina yellow school bus contract and shutting out local company Thomas Built Buses. Strike that, as IC Bus ended up the low bidder and winning the lucrative contract for nearly 900 new Type C buses.

Local North Carolina residents are sure to be unhappy, as there were press reports last month detailing the public outrcry before the contract was even finalized. Several media outlets quoted residents who were perplexed that Thomas of High Point would not be keeping the business in state especially in light of the economy and skyrocketing unemployment.

At that time, Blue Bird looked like it would win as it was the low bidder, a state requirement for awarding such bids. But a spokesman at the North Carolina Office of Public Instruction said Blue Bird retracted its proposal apparently after discovering some internal errors in calculations that procluded the company from actually meeting the price it quoted the state. That left IC Bus as the new low bidder, and with that the deal for the close to 900 CE Series school buses was inked.

However, Blue Bird did win a multi-award contract for activity buses along with IC Bus, though the exact number of buses is unknown because those purchases are up to local districts. But, last month, John O’Leary, president at Thomas, >said last month that losing the North Carolina award would not translate into job losses at home, despite the fact the company has laid off about 400 workers in the past year due to the economy.

The IC win, meanwhile, also means the advanced EGR MaxxForce diesel engine makes it onto the state specification list for meeting upcoming 2010 EPA emissions requirements. Both Blue Bird and Thomas are meeting the standard with urea-based SCR Cummins engines.

In a statement, John McKinney, president of IC Bus, gave the credit to a local dealer for the contract win.

“The team from White’s International has a keen understanding of the needs of this customer. They helped demonstrate how IC Bus could be a partner to them during and after the sale.” McKinney commented.

Navistar Points to CARB Research to Back Up Claims Against SCR

Navistar, the parent company of IC Bus, has taken its fight against selective catalyst reduction and for advanced exhaust gas recirculation as the right choice for meeting upcoming EPA 2010 emissions requirements in lowering nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at the tailpipe to no more than 0.2 grams. Currently, Navistar is suing the EPA in federal appeals court as it contends the feds by allowing SCR in its regulations will being increasing public health risks due to urea, the additive used in SCR to reduce NOx in the engine that has been used for the past two decades in Europe.

The aggressive marketing performed by Navistar this year has drawn criticism from many in automotive and fleet circles, such as Oliver Dixon's "Spiral of Dispair" article earlier this week on The World Trucks Blog at UK's www.roadtransport.com. But then, Navistar offered a rebuttal by claiming that a June letter penned by Bart Croes, chief of California Air Resources Board research, to the Health Effects Institute, a Boston nonprofit organization planning tests on 2010 engines, that said that the use of SCR represents a "large departure from conventional emission controls by introducing a liquid additive containing an organic form of nitrogen." According to MYETTNEWS.com, The letter goes on:

“Some toxic air contaminants that have been identified with SCR technology include hydrogen cyanide, cyanic acid, nitromethane, hydrazine, acrylonitrile, acrylamide, acetonitrile, and acetamide,” Croes wrote in his letter. “It is hoped that any exotic substances emitted from SCR technology will be at levels insignificant to exposure health effects.”

Although we are encouraged by findings to date, which suggest that the technology can deliver significant reductions of many species of toxicological relevance, this work has also documented the increase in some emissions such as some metals, nitrous oxide and nanoparticles.”

In the August issue of School Transportation News, contributor Bob Pudlewski writes that fleets must individually decide which technology best suits their needs, but either one has an increased price tag.

The debate rages on.

The Mystery of 2010: SCR vs. EGR

This week, both Thomas and IC Bus offer takes on the 2010 emissions regulations coming. In a story that appears elsewhere IC's marketing director argues its EGR solution is better because it's "less hassle"

Looking at both options, we can conclude that even if SCR improves fuel economy and if urea costs come down at some point, then the additional costs of training service techs, storing and purchasing replacement parts for the urea system, and adding a urea infrastructure to your business will add unfamiliarity and costs that are not good for your bottom line.

Thomas Built Buses counters with a Web site about its SCR solution. The company breaks the choice down to a top ten list:

1. Best fuel efficiency
2. Proven technology in Europe
3. EPA recommended and approved
4. Higher engine power density
5. No increased heat rejection, allowing for more efficient combustion
6. Lower cost of total ownership
7. Reliable
8. Durable
9. Easy to service
10.Environmentally friendly

Take a look at both sites for yourself. Let us know what you think. What questions do you still have about SCR and EGR? Let us know and we'll see if we can get them answered for you. Are you ready to make a switch? Have you already committed?