SCR Engine Makers Deny Navistar Claims

This story appears in the June 22 print edition of Transport Topics.

Several truck and engine manufacturers who plan to use selective catalytic reduction technology to meet 2010 emission standards have denied allegations by Navistar Inc. and have asked a federal appeals court to give them standing to argue against Navistar’s lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The SCR users said they, and not Navistar, are “in the best position to provide the court with a complete and accurate understanding of the SCR technology that will be necessary to demonstrate why Navistar’s assertions . . . are simply incorrect,” the SCR manufacturers said in papers filed June 12 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The response was filed by independent engine manufacturer Cummins Inc.; Daimler Trucks North America and its engine subsidiary Detroit Diesel Corp.; Volvo Group America and Volvo subsidiary Mack Trucks.

“Navistar’s most recent filing demonstrates that the other engine manufacturers must have the ability to participate in this case as ‘friends of the court,’ ” said James McNamara, a Volvo spokesman. “This is necessary to refute misinformation Navistar has presented to the court.

“This includes Navistar’s desperate attempt to mislead the court by taking information from Volvo Trucks North America’s Web site out of context to reach a wildly inaccurate and misguided conclusion,” McNamara said.

Navistar had asked the court to deny the SCR makers “friend of the court” standing in the case (click here for previous story).

Earlier this spring, Navistar, the only truck and engine manufacturer planning to use exhaust gas recirculation technology to meet EPA’s 2010 emissions standard, asked the court to review its

allegations that EPA illegally approved SCR guidelines in February after “reversing” its earlier assessment that SCR technology was not feasible (click here for previous story).

The SCR makers, however, said they are not “one and the same” as EPA, as Navistar argued. The SCR manufacturers said they have “important manufacturing and business interests at stake in these proceedings separate and apart from EPA’s interests as a federal regulatory agency.”

Navistar had said that the SCR manufacturers and a lawyer for the Engine Manufacturers Association worked behind the scenes to convince EPA to reverse its earlier position that SCR technology would not work as a way to comply with EPA’s 2010 diesel emissions standard.

In court papers filed June 8, Navistar said that EPA had been “diverted from its environmental mission and somehow talked into an environmentally hostile action.”

However, Joe Suchecki, an EMA spokesman, said his group provided routine assistance for its members in commenting on EPA’s SCR guidance document, but he denied that the industry trade group acted inappropriately.

“EPA has had lots of public guidance documents going many years back,” Suchecki said. “When we were working with them, we thought it was appropriate.”

But Navistar said EPA had skipped an important regulatory step in allowing SCR technology after expressing doubts in its 2001 truck rule that the technology would be feasible.

The SCR manufacturers previously have denied Navistar’s accusations but until now have declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

“We strongly disagree with the brief filed by Navistar and will respond accordingly through the legal process,” said Paul Hurd, Daimler’s general counsel.

Volvo’s McNamara referred to a statement in a Navistar court document that EPA’s SCR guidance memorandum “allows SCR manufacturers to turn back the clock on NOx reduction.”

“The SCR manufacturers have left no doubt that they intend to increase NOx emissions generated by their engines to achieve marketing advantages, while relying on SCR control [when it is operating] to clean the pollution up,” Navistar alleged.

Navistar said that Volvo said on its Web site that it will “significantly increase the NOx emissions generated by its engines once it starts using SCR.”

Quoting the Volvo Web site, Navistar said, “If NOx gases are selectively eliminated in a downstream aftertreatment chamber, the level of NOx produced by the engine can be significantly higher.”

McNamara, however, said the Navistar statements about the Web posting are misleading.

“The whole point of using exhaust aftertreatment is to meet the 0.2 gram NOx requirement, while delivering to the customer excellent fuel economy, performance and reliability,” McNamara said. “And better fuel economy means a reduced CO2 footprint, courtesy of SCR.”

“Navistar, of course, admits its technology is unable to reach the 0.2 gram NOx limit,” McNamara said. “There is absolutely no benefit to society, customers or the environment in the approach Navistar has deliberately chosen to confuse this very important issue.”

A Navistar spokesman declined to comment on the latest filing by the SCR makers.