'EPA Betrayed Us': Engine Makers Say Agency Knew About Test
Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp., Mack Trucks, Navistar International Transportation Corp. and Volvo Truck Corp. negotiated a consent decree with the EPA and the Department of Justice to settle allegations that the companies used “defeat devices” that allowed their engines to emit more pollution on the road than in certification tests. The deal levies heavy fines, introduces stricter emissions standards and forces the engine makers to make rebuilt engines run cleaner.
EPA accused the engine manufacturers of designing their engines’ computers specifically to circumvent federal standards.
As an example, EPA said, if a test lasted five minutes, the engine would run cleanly for those five minutes but begin emitting illegal levels of nitrogen oxide soon after.
The engine manufacturers deny claims that their engines’ computers were designed to circumvent federal standards. They charge that EPA knew for years about the design of the electronic engine controls and approved the testing procedures.
The manufacturers say they feel betrayed by the government’s handling of the situation. But, they said, an extended legal battle would be too costly.
“We looked at the possible impact of protracted and expensive litigation on our shareholders, employees and customers and determined that the best course of action for us was to settle the matter and put it behind us,” said Jim Henderson, chairman of Cummins.
“We chose to go for a settlement instead of a legal procedure, only because the court battles would have gone on for two years at least and would have cost us lots of money,” explained Hans Nyman, a Volvo vice president. “And while the court battle was going on, we would have had to go to court each year to certify our engines.”
Each of the companies operated with temporary certificates permitting them to build their engines in 1998. These conditional certifications are what forced the engine companies to negotiate a settlement with EPA.
The way EPA acted in this matter “borders on a crime,” said Stephen F. Homcha, vice president of engineering and product planning for Mack. “They held a gun to our head by threatening to withhold certification for 1999.”
“I’m a manufacturer who feels he’s been treated unfairly,” continued Mr. Homcha. “Looking at the level of penalties against a regulation and a test procedure that was very much set by EPA, it appears that the actions and the settlements were very severe on the engine manufacturers.”
llen Schaeffer, vice president of environmental affairs for American Trucking Associations, questions why EPA officials suddenly changed their minds. “EPA knew about this practice for seven to nine years. They condoned it, yet now were facing all these problems.”
“Our engines have always been in compliance with the Clean Air Act and EPA emissions regulations, and the EPA was aware of and supported the technologies we use to control emissions,” Sid Banwart, a Caterpillar vice president, said in a prepared statement.
EPA’s Ms. Oge refutes that claim. She said the agency didn’t know what the engine makers were doing until 1997.
Investigations began that year after one company’s product failed the emissions test, and was required to let EPA evaluate it. Once EPA officials got the engine in the lab and started more rigorous testing than usual, they said they found it polluted a lot more than it should.
Also at that time, the agency started using “rovers,” devices that measure emissions while a truck is on the road.
“With testing that engine and the rover technology, we became very concerned about this specific company and its engine. When we started talking to other companies, we realized what it was doing was not unusual,” said Ms. Oge.
Ms. Oge also denied that EPA knew how the engines were designed before that discovery.
“As long as you are using a device that has the potential of undermining the emission control strategy like these ones, you have to indicate that to the EPA. None of these companies ever indicated they were using these devices or how they were using them.”
Staff reporter Jeff Johnson contributed to this report.
211
