Navistar Sues Federal EPA

[DriVer]

Navistar files lawsuit against federal EPA

Kelly Cauthorn posted on July 12, 2011 14:31
RV D@aily News


SPRINGFIELD, Ohio -- The Springfield News Sun reports that Navistar accused EPA Director Lisa Jackson of not doing her duty to uphold the Clean Air Act and accused her agency of not doing its part to protect public health, according to a lawsuit filed July 5.

If true, trucks from model 2010 and beyond would not have to meet the nitrogen oxide standards of the Clean Air Act, reports the Springfield News Sun.

Navistar finally decided to sue after bringing the issue to the EPA's attention months ago.

For the complete story from the Springfield News Sun, click here.

[Ray,IN]

That reads like a very self-serving lawsuit by Navistar. The EPA approved the urea fluid system, and made it illegal to modify or tamper with any part of with the entire exhaust system of any internal combustion engine two decades ago.

[RustyJC]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Ray. This smacks of, "If you can't beat 'em in the marketplace, beat 'em in the courts."

JMHO, of course....

Rusty

[Route 66]

Navistar has been crying "foul" ever since the DEF system was approved.

If every manufacturer except Navistar is using it, it must have merit.

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray,IN The EPA approved the urea fluid system, and made it illegal to modify or tamper with any part of with the entire exhaust system of any internal combustion engine two decades ago.

Ray, IN, You know that's absolutely right! The convening board that wrote the 2010 emission control policy were by far a majority of people that had a vested interest in SCR and diesel exhaust fluid. In my opinion, it appears to me that the people with the greatest vested interest wrote the policy.

As of recently the specifications have been reviewed/re-written/amended/modified by an impartial board detailing what the requirements are for 2010 emissions however we are all seeing that the system can be circumvented therefore not in compliance with the law. Yes, you are correct that the later board made it illegal to modify or tamper with any part of with the entire exhaust system of any internal component of the internal combustion engine Apparently this is the basis for the suit since the end users or operators are certainly trying to do so.

Let speak toward the law. Does it always meet the requirement or not. If it does every dog can have their day in court to prove or disprove the allegation.

Remember the SCR consortium is "innocent" until proven guilty. If it takes a law suit in order to level the playing field for all the competitors then I think that this can't possibly be a bad thing. Let's get all this litigation out of the way and move forward.

If the suit brought by Navistar is baseless, let's all hear about it and stop speculating. Although it took me quite some time to wrap my arms around 2010 emissions, I do have a working understanding of how both systems work. I know that SCR works when it is used as intended. AEGR also works however there's no choice. Both systems are indeed 2010 emission control compliant. The key operative word in that statement is "work." Either it always works as designed or it doesn't always work. We as consumers need to know.

In previous litigation we have seen where Navistar won a case that required the SCR guys to install a device that would disable their system if it fell below compliance. We still are seeing "people" trying to beat the system by various means. Even Jerry Williamson from Tiffin said in RV Business, It's still new to customers" and "it's going to take a period of time for everybody to get used to it." You probably already know that Tiffin is a split shop which also uses both SCR & AEGR emission control strategies even though Tim Tiffin signed a document with other industry executives in overwhelming support for SCR.

I may be wrong about this but I believe that you are going to see increased resistance toward RV & fleet owners moving in masse to SCR when an in cylinder emissions control strategy is in place whose only requirement is to insert and turn the ignition key.

Both companies have millions of dollars invested in 2010 emissions and all I would want to see is not so much a clear victor for one strategy or the other but a level playing field so both technologies can coexist and meet the terms of the Clean Air Act which is law.

I'm hoping that we as a society are not going to be put in a position to pick and choose which laws we want to abide by. That said, It would appear that you can't believe everything that is written in newspapers now days can we?

[RustyJC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DriVer I may be wrong about this but I believe that you are going to see increased resistance toward RV & fleet owners moving in masse to SCR when an in cylinder emissions control strategy is in place whose only requirement is to insert and turn the ignition key.

If all else were equal, you might be right. However, SCR using DEF is proving to provide a significant MPG increase over AEGR with its fuel-wasting regeneration requirements, etc. My point is, I'm getting weary of Navistar's whining. They have made their choice regarding emissions technology. So have the other engine manufacturers. So, Navistar, grow up and stop whining already and let the marketplace decide....

Rusty

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyJC However, SCR using DEF is proving to provide a significant MPG increase over AEGR with its fuel-wasting regeneration requirements, etc.

Rusty, As always I appreciate your comments toward any topic of discussion. You da man!

Have you seen this particular article which addresses fluid economy in regard to the single largest operating fleet in the country? At the end of the day, if your point is that increased MPG offers savings toward the end user operator, it certainly is in refute in the following article.

Operators will factor in how much does it cost for me to operate my fleet times the hundreds or thousands of vehicles in that fleet?

Update: Navistar Research Shows Advanced EGR Offers 4.5 Percent Advantage in 'Fluid Economy'

As of the last time I heard a number, IC holds 64% of the market. In my opinion, this would make a good case that it's more involved than just Navistar whining.

With a law is on the books why would should we want to label that as whining and why not give them their day in court. Everyone in this country has the right to be heard. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that.

[RustyJC]

Mike, the over-the-road fleet owners and owner/operators will ultimately take all the cost factors into account - initial purchase price, MPG, DEF cost, maintenance costs, downtime, etc - and pick the winners and losers in this battle. It all comes down to profit and loss for those folks - the bottom right-hand corner.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion regarding Navistar's seemingly endless litigation. The simple facts are that the EPA made the rules, and everyone knew what the rules were when each company developed their 2010 technology. The EPA really didn't play favorites between manufacturers and technologies as far as I've seen - they just said here are the allowable levels of CO, NOx, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, etc. I don't think that, under the current tree-hugger-friendly political administration, anyone could accuse the EPA of being anything less than vigilant in enforcing those emissions standards. Yes, Navistar is entitled to their (yet another) day in court since anyone can basically sue anyone else for anything, but (again, in the opinion of THIS observer), Navistar's continuing pattern of litigation smacks of the little kid running to the playground monitor every 5 minutes and whining that all the other kids are breaking the rules in the kickball game.

YMMV, of course.....

Rusty

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyJC YMMV, of course.....

Rusty, Is the federal court system allowing Navistar to win its cases because they are whining?

[RustyJC]

Mike, let's just agree to disagree on this subject. Unlike you, I really ain't got no dog in this fight. That's why I'm perfectly willing to let the marketplace rather than the courts decide which technology wins.

Rusty

[wa8yxm]

The article said Navistar uses a different method but did not say what it was.

There are many cases where the government has mandated this or that when something else makes a whole lot more sense.. The Urea system is low cost and easy to product but it's also easy to "Disable" in many cases. (the article suggests all cases)

So, can someone describe, in lay terms, both systems well enough for a reasonable man to better understand the systems?

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa8yxm So, can someone describe, in lay terms, both systems well enough for a reasonable man to better understand the systems?

wa8yxm, Since you asked, I wrote this article in My Blogs which I expect are probably some of my best kept secrets. I don't think that anyone knows that they're there.

Freightliner Custom Chassis Introduces NEW S2 RV Chassis

The above Blog details what I know about SCR.

In regard to AEGR, first of all both camps use EGR or exhaust gas recirculation. Without EGR both strategies never come close to meeting the standard.

EGR stands for Exhaust Gas Recirculation. In a nutshell, cooled diesel exhaust is recirculated back into the engine, reducing emissions in cylinder before it comes back out.

How MaxxForce® Advanced EGR works.

EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) is an emissions reduction technique already used in most gasoline and diesel engines. EGR works by re-circulating a portion of an engine's exhaust back to the engine cylinders and burning off excess pollutants. Navistar via technology has advanced the technique thereby calling it AEGR.

When temperatures in the combustion chamber get hot, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) form. When these nitrous oxides combine with hydrocarbons, they produce the ugly haze we call smog once in the air. EGR re-circulates this exhaust into the intake stream. Since the exhaust gases have already combusted, they don't burn again. These gases displace some of the normal intake, slowing and cooling the combustion process, which reduces NOx formation.

2010 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are engineered to precisely control the flow of re-circulated exhaust. These engines have increased injection pressure, improved combustion and refined calibrations with that goal in mind. The result is an engine that treats NOx in-cylinder, and therefore requires no extra effort from vehicle owners other than turning the ignition key on and driving the vehicle away.

Since January 2010, the EPA requires new vehicles to achieve a diesel exhaust emissions regulations limit, which is 0.50 NOx (g/hp-hr), down from 2.0 in 2007.

The basic difference in technology is therefore selective catalytic reduction (SCR) treats emissions in the downstream devices using a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). In this device large particles in the exhaust stream are trapped. This device also contains the Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC). The stream then moves to a decomposition reactor called a dosing valve where DEF is injected. The final piece of the SCR chain is the SCR itself that converts the balance of the exhaust stream into N and H2O. AEGR does the same thing in-cylinder and then passes the exhaust stream to an Oxygen Catalyst and finally to a DPF without using DEF.

At the end of the day both camps come close at the tailpipe toward meeting the .50 NOx limit using their technology AND EPA credits. In the next phase of diesel emissions 2012-2013, the limit is pushed downward again to 0.20%. At this time no amount of credits are going to help the manufacturers because those will run out like rain in a tropical storm.

I'm not sure what SCR can do to reduce the existing limits other than adding more media in the SCR and DPF and perhaps doing more with EGR in-cylinder. AEGR technology can be improved I understand quite a bit by introducing a solid urea product down stream. The solid urea again is not dependent on the driver to do anything however it would have to be replaced during the course of a normal oil and filter change service at pre-defined intervals. I'm not sure what the interval would be.

[RustyJC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa8yxm So, can someone describe, in lay terms, both systems well enough for a reasonable man to better understand the systems?

Take a look HERE for a discussion of how the SCR/DEF system works.

Rusty

[DriVer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyJC Take a look HERE for a discussion of how the SCR/DEF system works.

Yes it does but I have pictures.