Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 6
1. INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Amendments of 1970, which established exhaust
emission standards for 1975 and 1976 light-duty vehicles (henceforth
called vehicles) and light-duty vehicle engines, called on the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "to enter
into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAB) to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation of the tech-
nological feasibility of meeting the emission standards" promulgated
by the Clean Air Amendments. Meetings held between the NAS and EPA
early in 1971 resulted in the establishment of a mutually agreeable
work statement for the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions of the
National Academy of Sciences. An extract from the work statement
follows:
Statement of Work
The Contractor shall conduct a many-faceted study of
the technological feasibility of meeting the motor
vehicle emission standards prescribed by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, as required by
Section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
B. For the purposes of this s tudy the term " technological
fees ibility" includes the ability within the automobile
industry or elsewhere to
1. Design an engine, control system, or
device capable of meeting the statutory
emission standards using fuels which
are or could be available
Mass produce such an engine, control
system, or device
3. Maintain such an engine, control system,
or device so that it will continue to
meet the statutory emission standards with
safety for a period of five years or 50,000
miles of operation, whichever is shorter.
- 6 —
OCR for page 7
~-
The study of technological feasibility as defined shall
include a study emphasizing the technical aspects of the
reported costs expected to be incurred in and the esti ma ted
tame for the design, development, and mass production of an
engine, control system, or device capable of meeting the
statutory emission standards.
The study of technological feasibility shall include a
study emphasizing the technical aspects of the reported
estimates of extra cost incurred in maintaining such an
engine, control system, or device so that it will meet the
statutory emission standards for a period of five years
or 50,000 miles, whichever is shorter.
E. Should the Contractor conclude that the attainment of
emission standards on the schedule provided by Section
202(b)~1) of the Clean Air Act is not technologically
feasible, the Contractor shall specifically determine
technologically feasible interim emission levels to
assist the Administrator in exercising his responsi-
bilities under Section 202(b)~5) of the Act.
1.1
Past Work of the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions
.
Membership of the Committee, shown in Appendix A, was selected
entirely by the National Academy of Sciences.
The first meeting of the Committee took place on June 16, 1971,
with subsequent meetings held approximately once each month. The Clean
Air Amendments called for the Committee to submit semiannual progress
reports to the Administrator and to Congress. One of the primary func-
tions of such reports was to provide advice to the Administrator of EPA
with respect to his decision whether or not to postpone for one year
the applicable deadlines of the standards called for by the Clean Air
Amendments. Under the legislation, anytime after January 1, 1972, any
manufacturer may file with the Administrator an application requesting
a one year suspension of the regulations applicable to emissions from
1975 model year vehicles. Anytime after January 1, 1973, any manu-
facturer may file an application requesting a one year suspension of
the regulations applicable to emissions from 1976 model year vehicles.
OCR for page 8
The Administrator must make his determination of each request for sus-
pension within 60 days.
To provide maximum assistance to the Administrator in the formu-
lation of his decision, and with due consideration of the timing re-
quired for such a decision, the Committee issued its first substantive
report on January 1, 1972, containing a comprehensive study of the
technological feasibility of the standards applicable to 1975 model
year vehicles. In April 1972, in response to a direct request from
EPA, the Committee prepared a report with respect to possible interim
standards, in the event the Administrator were to grant a suspension
of the 1975 standards. A brief progress report was submitted July 1,
197 2, discussing the various areas of investigation of the Committee
at that time.
This report of the Committee emphas izes the ques Lion of techno-
log~cal feasibility of the 1976 standards. In August 1972, the
Administrator denied the requests of Volvo, International Harvester,
Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors for a suspension of the 1975 standards.
Requests for suspension of the 1975 standards may, however' be filed
again by the above manufacturers or by others. A portion of this report
is thus addressed to the technological feasibility of the 1975 standards.
1.2 Panels of Consultants
The Corrunittee has recognized the importance of having available
to it the most recent and complete technical data and information upon
which to make its judgments. Much of the information has been pro-
v~ded by eight panels of consultants, each panel dealing with a partic-
ular subject area of importance in the Committee deliberations. Panel
members were selected by the Committee on the basis of recognized com-
petence in specific areas. Membership of the panels is shown in
Appendix B. Seven of these panel s were in operation during 1971. The
Catalyst Panel was added early in 1972 after the Committee became aware
— 8 —
OCR for page 9
of the many controversial and critical factors associated with the
operational characteristics of the automotive catalyst. The work of
each of the panels was as follows.
1.2.1 Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance
The Panel on Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance was organized
to assess the feasibility of ensuring that automobiles manufactured for
1975-1976 model years continue to meet the specified emission standards
in actual customer use over the required period. The panel evaluated
each method as a system, from certification testing through assembly-
line control, surveillance, inspection, and maintenance in use. This
study also considered the necessary training and licensing of mechanics,
enforcement action required, short emission tests suitable for inspec-
tion or diagnosis, surveillance testing, feasibility of required
maintenance procedures, and costs of maintaining emission-control sys-
tems for 1975-1976 vehicles.
1.2.2 Emission-Control Systems
The Panel on Emission-Control Systems was to investigate the
potential of experimental 1975-1976 emission-control systems, including
consideration of the durability of these systems. The activities of
this panel were restricted to studies of emission control for the spark-
ignition internal-combustion engine including the Wankel and stratif~ed-
charge types of engines. The use of different fuels, such as liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), as well as dual-fuel concepts were also evaluated.
1.2.3 Alternate Power~Sources
This panel was responsible for evaluating all automobile power
source concepts except the conventional Otto-cycle engine, the internal-
combustion Wankel engine, and the stratified-charge engine. The panel
thus considered diesel engines, Rankine-cycle engines, Brayton-cycle
_ 9 _
OCR for page 10
engines, Stirling engines, electric systems, hybrid systems, and
several sys tems that fell into no broad category.
The panel was to determine if it would be possible for any of
the candidate engine systems to meet the 1975-1976 emission standards
in production and the 50,000-mile (or five-year) life standard. For
each promising system, the panel estimated the earliest possible date
that mass production could be achieved. Major technical problem areas
were identif fed for each system, and the probability of solving these
problems was es timated.
Acceptability of each system, to the customer and to the
industry, was predicted by the panel on the basis of driveability,
safety, s Carting characteris tics, maintainability, noise, cost, fuel
economy, and many other factors. Some of these determinations were
made in cooperation with other panels.
1. 2. 4 Manufacturing and Producib' lity
This panel was concerned with the manufacturability of low-
emission systems and their components. The effort was not limited to
the technical possibility of building one or a few systems; the techno-
logical feasibility of producing millions of systems in 1975 and 1976
was determined. This study included such cons iterations as producibility,
tooling, lead time, and costs.
The work of this panel was directed toward helping the
Committee determine, as specified in paragraph B2 of the Statement of
Work, whether, within the automobile industry or elsewhere, there was
a capability to mass-produce an engine, control system, or device
capable of meeting the emission standards.
- 10 -
OCR for page 11
1. 2.5 Driveability
The mis s ion of this panel was to appraise the driveability of
vehicles powered by candidate engine systems. Good driveabil ity is
loosely defined as the ability of a vehicle to start, operate, and
stop smoothly under all environmental and operating conditions, without
stalls, surges, hesitations, after-firing, and other undesirable charac-
teristics.
There has been considerable testimony expressing opinions that
some of the emission-control systems, especially if not properly main-
tained, would seriously affect the safety of the car, not only relative
to its occupants, but also relative to other vehicles in traffic.
Thus, assessing driveability is an important aspect of determining the
feasibility of using a given system or engine, The work of this panel
was done in conjunction with that of the Panel on Emission-Control
Systems.
1 2 6 Catalysts
· —
The COME organized this panel when it became apparent that
the durability of many proposed emission-control systems is closely
tied to catalyst performance. This panel analyzed activity and dura-
bility of both oxidation and reduction catalysts for emission-control
systems. The major causes of catalyst failure during vehicle operation
were examined. The effect on catalyst deterioration of the level of
poisons in gasoline such as lead, sulfur, and phosphorus was studied,
as was the effect of over-temperature on catalyst activity. Availability
of catalytic materials -and possible toxicity problems associated with
the use of certain catalysts were also investigated.
_ 11 -
OCR for page 12
1.2.7 Emission Standards and Atmospheric Chemistry
The work of the Panels on Emission Standards and Atmospheric
Chemistry was associated with the requirement in the original work
statement concerning recommendation by the Academy of technologically
feasible interim emission levels.
The major concern was with interim levels for the 1976 standards,
in the event that achievement of such standards was to be delayed a year.
For the 1976 standards, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) must be controlled in
addition to hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), procedures that
reduce NO do not necessarily reduce HO and CO, and may increase them.
x
There are many sets of technologically feasible levels of the three
pollutants that the Committee might recommend. Thus, these two panels
have studied the various possibilities and tradeoffs.
The Panel on Atmospheric Chemistry determined, from the latest
available data, the relationship between ambient concentrations of HO
and NOx necessary to cause undesirable levels of oxidant production.
The Pane! on Emission Standards used these data, along with desirable
air-quality goals for CO and NOx, and developed corresponding motor
vehicle emission levels.
Each of the panels has devoted considerable time and effort to
the work of the Committee. Some of the panel members have given virtu-
ally full-time effort to Committee work. These panels have traveled
extensively and probed deeply in their attempts to bring before the
Committee the material and information needed for the Committee to
reach the judgments called for in the legislation. Panel visits have
been made to domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers, to domestic
and foreign catalyst suppliers, to the EPA and other government labora-
tories, to independent research laboratories, to state and local agencies
concerned with the problems of enforcing emission standards, to those
- 12 -
1
OCR for page 13
carrying out research and development on many types of alternate power
plants, to oil companies, and to many others. A list of companies and
individuals visited or otherwise contacted by COME personnel is given
in Appendix C.
In each visit, panel members have endeavored to ensure the
timeliness and validity of the data furnished to them. Panel visits
have involved discussions with personnel ranging from top management
to working technicians and engineers.
The panels have reported periodically to the parent Committee
on their progress. Close contact has been maintained between the panels
and the Committee, to ensure that the panels were stressing the necessary
topical areas in their investigations. Panel activities terminated with
the submission of final written panel reports to the Committee.
1.3
Other Means of Obtaining Information
The Committee has attempted to solicit pertinent information
from the general public. Announcements have been placed in the Federal
Register requesting information with respect to technological feasibility.
Descriptions of these announcements are included as Appendix D.
Finally, the Committee as a whole visited General Motors and
Ford in Detroit on May 18 and 19, 1972, to get a first-hand view of the
efforts of two of the larger manufacturers toward meeting the emission
standards. Visits by selected members of the Committee were made to
other manufacturers.
The judgments of the Committee to be presented in this report
necessarily rely upon the information received using the various sources
mentioned above. The Committee believes that it has had presented to it
sufficient information upon which to base its judgments.
OCR for page 14
NOTE
Final reports of the CMVE panels are being prepared as
technical publications and will be made available to the public by
the National Research Council. Other pertinent information will b
maintained as a public record in the f iles of the COVE.
- 14
-
Representative terms from entire chapter:
technological feasibility
