So says Hector Maldonado, of the California Air Resources Board, in response to Navistar's decision to file a letter with the federal court as part of its ongoing row with the EPA. Written by Bart Croes, chief of CARB Research and addressed to the Health Effects Institute, Navistar contends that the letter helps show that "skipping the rigors of rulemaking means EPA and CARB have put the public at risk by allowing SCR on the highway now, when it may turn out that the cure is worse than the disease."
We are now past the 'What were they thinking stage' with Navistar, and have now entered a period of full-on disbelief.
Croes is reported to have written the following:
"Some toxic air contaminants that have been identified with SCR technology include hydrogen cyanide, cyanic acid, nitromethane, hydrazine, acrylonitrile, acrylamide, acetonitrile, and acetamide."
Here is a partial list of the bad stuff that comes out of the tailpipe of a diesel powered vehicle. There is some overlap with that list provided by Croes. We would assume that the correlation between the amount of diesel burned and the amount of this bad stuff being shot out into the atmosphere is fairly positive. Hence, for Navistar to argue against any other form of emissions control technique when it will be selling by far the most polluting - namely 0.5 NOx as opposed to 0.2 NOx - and probably the most fuel inefficient engine on the market post January 1st next year is somewhat ironic.
But Navistar does not like the idea of other OEMs using an aftertreatment system that may, theoretically, produce toxic air contaminants which, as Croes himself is at pains to point out, may be of a level too low to register on the concern radar: "It is hoped that any exotic substances emitted from SCR technology will be at levels insignificant to exposure health effects," he writes. Maldonado is of a similar view: "There is a possibility, at least in a theoretical sense, that some of these compounds could be formed. However, based on the experience we have to date, there are no alarm bells being rung, but at the same time, we are aware that there is a possibility."
This is nothing more than mischief making on the part of Navistar, and smacks, once again, of a Hail Mary. Not content with getting up the nose of both the EPA and the DoD, NAV is now taking the words of the CARB and twisting them into a shape that defies description, presumably with the hope that, when a Judge finally gets to look at this, s/he will find themselves blinded with (bad) science and find in its favour.
This would be a grave error. Navistar's behaviour during the run-up to EPA 10 has been notably lacking in both factual accuracy and, at times, integrity. This is only the latest, but, quite possibly, most egregious example. It is, as Maldonado makes clear, utterly misleading: "(It is) in my opinion, a blatant misrepresentation."
Croes is reported to have written the following:
"Some toxic air contaminants that have been identified with SCR technology include hydrogen cyanide, cyanic acid, nitromethane, hydrazine, acrylonitrile, acrylamide, acetonitrile, and acetamide."
Here is a partial list of the bad stuff that comes out of the tailpipe of a diesel powered vehicle. There is some overlap with that list provided by Croes. We would assume that the correlation between the amount of diesel burned and the amount of this bad stuff being shot out into the atmosphere is fairly positive. Hence, for Navistar to argue against any other form of emissions control technique when it will be selling by far the most polluting - namely 0.5 NOx as opposed to 0.2 NOx - and probably the most fuel inefficient engine on the market post January 1st next year is somewhat ironic.
But Navistar does not like the idea of other OEMs using an aftertreatment system that may, theoretically, produce toxic air contaminants which, as Croes himself is at pains to point out, may be of a level too low to register on the concern radar: "It is hoped that any exotic substances emitted from SCR technology will be at levels insignificant to exposure health effects," he writes. Maldonado is of a similar view: "There is a possibility, at least in a theoretical sense, that some of these compounds could be formed. However, based on the experience we have to date, there are no alarm bells being rung, but at the same time, we are aware that there is a possibility."
This is nothing more than mischief making on the part of Navistar, and smacks, once again, of a Hail Mary. Not content with getting up the nose of both the EPA and the DoD, NAV is now taking the words of the CARB and twisting them into a shape that defies description, presumably with the hope that, when a Judge finally gets to look at this, s/he will find themselves blinded with (bad) science and find in its favour.
This would be a grave error. Navistar's behaviour during the run-up to EPA 10 has been notably lacking in both factual accuracy and, at times, integrity. This is only the latest, but, quite possibly, most egregious example. It is, as Maldonado makes clear, utterly misleading: "(It is) in my opinion, a blatant misrepresentation."
Comments (5)
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=22494
Posted by Shine | August 10, 2009 10:54 PM
Posted on August 10, 2009 22:54
This does smack somewhat of Saddam Hussein's press releases as Operation Freedom rolled into Baghdad.
However, NAV's manuevering room is extremely limited, at this point. All they are left with is Hail Marys. Certainly, they aren't winning any points with the regulators, but from their point of view, the greater evil is having the standard go into effect, as published, on schedule. So, they have to resort to the courts, as they've done so many times over the past decade, to try to level the playing field.
One could assume bdshine has a different point of view?
Posted by forageharvester | August 10, 2009 11:27 PM
Posted on August 10, 2009 23:27
Since you asked whether I have a different view, I take the opportunity to share just two points with you:
1. O. Dixon finds it "ironic" (mind you that's just an opinion, not a fact) that Navistar should complain about the toxicity of 0.2 Nox for SCR when its own EGR is 0.5 Nox.
The facts are:
1. Navistar is 0.5 Nox legal. Navistar made a deal with the EPA several years ago that in exchange for making engines that were cleaner than then required, Navistar now could be legal with 0.5. That's a fact that thrumps the other fact that 0.5 is not as clean as 0.2.
2. I posted a link of an article written on Transport Topics by a REPORTER who did not write opinions but merely reported the FACT that SCR "would emit toxic byproducts. the California Air Resources Board's top researcher in a recent letter filed in federal court by Navistar Inc." Navistar did not write the letter;Navistar just made the court aware ofan unbiased analisys by a guy who no ax to grind.
So that you know. I have nothing to do or even know any one connected with Navistar.
I just have a good chunk of my money invested in Navistar stock. And I am not pushing for Navistar. As a matter of fact, I am looking more for honest criticism of Navistar than for praise. I know its good points. I need to know its bad points so that I can make an accurate evaluation of my investment of whether to stay with it or sell it.
Posted by Shine | August 11, 2009 12:41 AM
Posted on August 11, 2009 00:41
Navistar's fatally flawed pickup truck engines won't bale it out of the fine mess it has itself in right now.
Navistar's last 2 major engine supply agreements (Ford and Caterpillar)seem to have ended in lawsuits founded on Navistar's technological shortcomings. But the sheer willingness to defy ethics and good business principles as evidenced in Navistar's 2010 tactics should make all of us sit up and take notice of their desperation.
Now Navistar is backed into a corner and its only lifeline is to file lawsuits against anyone and everyone involved with the EPA and CARB. It's just a broken record with Navistar.
I can't imagine someone willing to bet their business on products made by a company which resorts to filing lawsuits against those very customers and partners that have sustained it over the years. I hope they have iron clad contracts to defend against the army of lawyers that Navistar retains.
Posted by Smart Guy | August 12, 2009 5:03 AM
Posted on August 12, 2009 05:03
Please reference the below link. MWM proudly is part of the Navistar group. If SCR is the devil as NAV wants us to believe, then why is it the solution of choice for MWM on engines Euro IV and newer. Do all the problems with SCR that NAV claims not exist in other countries? This is even worse than the MAN double standard- Navistar's name is all over the website! Explaination anyone?
http://www.mwm-international.com.br/default.asp?su=3&pa=subSeries&idSubSerie=44
Posted by CL | August 12, 2009 4:39 PM
Posted on August 12, 2009 16:39