EPA Fines Engine Makers
IMG src="/sites/default/files/images/articles/browner.gif" border="0" alt="" >
font size="-2" face="arial" color="gray">Michael James — Transport Topics /td> |
Engine recalls are not part of the deal. But manufacturers will have to retrofit any engines they rebuild.
The federal agency estimates the costs to manufacturers of design modifications and retrofitting will exceed $850 million.
In announcing the agreement, Attorney General Janet Reno said “emissions from diesel engines will be reduced by one-third from their current level” over the next five years.
The settlement stems from EPA allegations that engine makers have designed electronic controls so that their engines run clean enough to pass the certification test, but don’t meet emissions targets under real highway conditions (TT, 2-2-98, p. 1).
“They programmed the engine so that it knew when it was being tested and when it was on the road,” said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner.
The engine manufacturers — Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp., Mack Trucks, Navistar International Transportation Corp. and Volvo Truck Corp.— agreed to settle, but continue to deny they violated any laws. These manufacturers account for 95% of the heavy-duty diesel engines sold in the U.S.
“While we’re committed to the goals of our agreement, we’re dismayed that the EPA concluded we took steps to get around emissions guidelines,” said Sid Banwart, vice president of Caterpillar’s Technical Services Division.
“We continue to maintain that Mack has always been in compliance with EPA emissions regulations, and are dismayed by EPA’s allegations that we tried to circumvent them,” said Michel Gigou, Mack president.
As part of the agreement, the companies will pay $109.5 million to fund research and development projects on lowering emissions.
In addition, they will pay $83.4 million in civil penalties, one fourth of which will go to California, which has a related settlement with the companies.
The specific amounts each company will pay are based on the number of illegal engines it produced and how much pollution those engines caused. Ms. Browner also EPA has taken into account how much each company could afford to pay.
The total settlements: Caterpillar, $60 million; Cummins, $60 million; Mack Trucks, $31 million; Detroit Diesel, $24.5 million; Volvo $14 million; and Navistar, $2.9 million.
These penalties total the largest ever for an environmental law. “Every polluter in America had better take note of these record penalties — if you pollute America’s air, you are going to pay a very high price,” Ms. Reno said. “The plain fact is these companies needlessly cost themselves millions of extra dollars by not complying with the law in the first place.
Ms. Reno’s office handles litigation for federal agencies.
In addition to the monetary penalties, the settlement includes many concessions by the engine companies to meet stricter air quality standards.
Currently the standards for how much nitrous oxide, or NOx, can be emitted are at 4 grams per brake-horsepower-hour. The EPA alleges that the engines meet these standards at low speeds, but can get as high as 10 grams at higher speeds under so called steady-state conditions. The agreement will force engine manufacturers to reduce steady-state emissions to six by Dec. 31.
By Oct. 1, 2002, however, all emissions will have to be reduced to 2.5 grams. This standard was set to be in place for 2004, but the agreement moves up the deadline by 15 months.
“EPA is pulling in the deadline we were working from and saying you produce cleaner engines even earlier than you would have under current rules,” said Allen Schaeffer, vice president of environmental affairs for American Trucking Associations.
As for the engines on the road today, the general recalls that environmental advocates wanted are not a part of the agreement.
Instead, engine manufacturers will have to pay for emissions-reduction retrofitting when their engines are rebuilt. Ms. Browner estimated that since engines are usually rebuilt every three years, 1.1 million trucks will have to be retrofitted each year until full compliance is attained.
She explained that retrofitting is a much more effective remedy than recall because a recall is voluntary and not legally enforceable.
To ensure that the new standards the EPA is working are met on a new emissions test that is stricter and more comprehensive than the one in use now.
Part of the problem with the current certification test is that it only measures emissions at engine speeds of 35 to 40 mph and not the faster, steady-state speeds common in highway use, when NOx emissions are at their worst, the agency says.
According to Heino Scharf, director of product assurance for Volvo, the new test will incorporate aspects of the Euro-III, which European Union countries have used for years. It tests a wider range of speeds and is more representative of what really happens under both urban and highway conditions, ATA’s Mr. Schaeffer said.
While applauding these steps to reduce pollution, some in the trucking industry are concerned about the wide ramifications of this agreement.
According to Mr. Schaeffer the engine modifications the new standards require will result in poorer engine performance.
The redesigned engines could use up to 10% more fuel, Mr. Schaeffer said. He was recently told by one of the major less-than-truckload fleets that a 3% to 4% reduction in fuel economy would mean losses of at least $3 million.
The engine modifications will also likely result in a greater amount of wear and require shorter maintenance intervals and more frequent oil changes.
Another concern is that the new engines, which will likely need a bigger radiator, will require the front ends of trucks to be changed in order to fit. “What we’re hearing is that some of the time frames of the settlement are very aggressive and the manufacturers of the trucks feel that they can’t possibly do what the engine makers have agreed to with the EPA in those time frames,” said Mr. Schaeffer.
All this could have a disastrous effect on the sales on new engines and trucks, said ATA President Walter B. McCormick Jr. “We do remain concerned about the fact that many of these technical changes to new engines could significantly reduce fuel economy of trucks, impacting future purchase plans. The impacts of this settlement may very well give pause to trucking companies placing orders in the next few years, and could result in the delay or cancellation of current orders for new equipment.”
Engine manufacturers said they are confident they will be up to the challenges of meeting the terms of the agreement without reducing performance.
“Because of our aggressive investment in technology, Cummins is able to comply with the first-phase requirements while delivering the same — or in some cases, better — customer benefits than products produced in 1998,” wrote James A Henderson, Cummins’ chairman, in a letter to his customers.
Navistar said there will be no impact on its engines’ performance.
