available and the shape of the can containing the catalyst that will fit under the car without major changes in the frame or other components. The monolithic catalyst in deep beds has lower back pressure so it is possible to make longer, more cylindrical converter. In the pellet, the beds have to be made shallow and spread out. So you end up with things that may not occupy any more space but they occupy a different shape of space. They might look a little more like a pancake or a variety of different shapes. Senator BIDEN. You indicated that you felt that the American public has been misled about the effect of this in long-term durability of the catalyst. Were you referring to anyone in particular? Mr. PRICE. I was referring really to your first question, the first question you directed to representatives from Engelhard. The National Academy and Chrysler, yes, have made certain statements as have many others about the cost and problems of dual bed catalytic systems. I think it is important to remember that dual bed catalystic systems exist only because of that very tight 1976 standards for NO,. It is a credit, I think, to the effectiveness of catalysts that, yes, a dual bed catalyst system is the only way anyone can possibly project being able to meet that standard on time. But nobody has made a system that can meet that standard with all the required durability schedules and other parameters. So it is sort of fair game to speculate on what might be required to meet it, and speculating what might be required to meet an unmeetable standard, at least as of today. It is possible to say we will triple the amount of noble metal and put double the exhaust gas recycle and let's make the reduction catalyst this much longer and add this and do this and come up with a system that nobody can argue with, because maybe it would do it. But it is a system that is very expensive with terrible penalties. A dual bed catalyst system requires rich tuning; it requires a method of switching the air gain after the reducing catalyst lets off back to the oxidizing catalytic converter; it requires a large amount of gas recycle to take it still further beyond what the catalyst can do by itself, down to the level of 0.41. Add all these together and you have double the cost of the catalyst, you have fuel penalties and you have problems. We have always felt that the dual bed catalyst system was a less effective way of meeting that tight standard than a method of three components control that uses one catalyst bed. The technological problem that we saw in making a three-component control system workable is that a sensor must be developed. that is sufficiently durable that will feed back a signal to the carburetor enabling the carburetor to be maintained at stoichiometric air-fuel ratios. At those ratios a single catalyst bed can do the job of controlling all three pollutants simultaneously. All of these three react with one another to form innocuous byproducts of combustion. This does require maintaining the air-fuel ratio at stoichiometric. Progress is being made on the feedback control systems. Progress is also being made in approaching this through the developments of constant pressure carburetors. That will go a long way toward meeting the requirement. But let's put all that aside. We believe there is a better way in duel bed catalyst systems to meet the 1976 standards if they remain where they are. In this way, the way I just mentioned, the three components control would impose no performance or mileage penalties and require only a single bed catalyst. The whole thing is apt to be academic, though, because the EPA for at least a year now has been talking to the point that the NO, standard was established perhaps in error because the instruments used to measure NO, in the ambient air have overstated the presence of the problem. If this is so, if it is really true that they have overstated the presence of the problem, and that the one-anda-half grams per mile that California feels is adequate to protect their air is indeed adequate, then the whole thing is academic because the 1975 system can be adapted very readily to do that kind of control job. Senator BIDEN. I think it should be pointed out that although in the past Congress has given the public and manufacturers, such as yourself, reason to think that maybe there isn't a Congress, really and truly the Administrators at the EPA don't write the law and the Administration doesn't write all the laws. The question of changing the NO, standard is to be determined here, by the Congress. There has been no evidence so far, or I haven't heard anyone come forward to strongly suggest that that standard be changed. I wouldn't be so concerned about the Administrator's comments on the NO, standard as everyone seems to put a good deal of weight on it. I am beginning to wonder if the Administrators in all the agencies of the Government are able to make the laws as they think they can. I guess I will be able to tell my children what it was like to have been a member of the House of Lords a couple years from now. At any rate, it hasn't changed that drastically yet. We do have a function here. Mr. PRICE. You certainly do. There are two alternatives. One is the three-point control system at least as close to commercial realities as the dual bed catalyst system and does not have all the penalties projected. Senator BIDEN. And still meet the standards? Mr. PRICE. Yes. Then as an alternative, in case the standards are loosened to the 1.5 to 2 grams-per-mile, the systems that are used on 1975 automobiles will do that job. In doing it, it can regain the performance and economy that has been lost over the years because of the use of mechanical devices and engine adjustments to control emissions. Senator BIDEN. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. It is a good statement. I appreciate your responding to my questions. If you have any further cominents, feel free, but I have no further questions. Mr. PRICE. I would like to comment on the platinum emissions. In the tests that have been conducted on the converter, the type that General Motors is planning to use, we have analyzed the catalyst at the end of 50,000 miles and the beginning. If anything, there is uniformly a small weight gain between 0 and 50,000 miles. This is the addition of salts and deposits from the automobile. We find virtually no loss in platinum. Îf all of the platinum had been lost it would be .0000448 grams-per-mile at 50,000 miles. Platinum, as it would be lost from the converter, would be in the form platinum is in jewelry. I don't know too many people who are allergic to platinum. Mr. DEPALMA. May I fill in on one point? There were two comments I wanted to make. First, you addressed yourself to the business of loss of catalyst a while ago, as to what this would do with regard to secondary pollution to the atmosphere. I would like to point out that in all of these tests we have run, and we have only presented 2 or 3 here in the appendix, we have accumulated well over half a million miles of road testing on this kind of car converter system. In no case did we lose more than 5 volume percent of catalyst, particularly in these tests which are of interest to you. So in terms of either secondary air pollution, it is really not a problem, or in terms of replacing the amount of lost catalyst that also is not a problem. Secondly, I would like to comment on the question you asked previously of melting. Regarding the spherical catalyst, again there has been no condition ever occurring on the vehicle, including total failure, with all eight plugs missing, where we have melted a spherical catalyst. In no case has that happened. Mr. PRICE. The difference is that the base support for the spherical catalyst melts at around 3800 degrees. That is the monolithic test. Even if it melts, it continues to control emissions to a greater or lesser extent. You say is it possible the catalyst will last the life of the car? I say, yes, a well-designed system is definitely possible. If you look at the standard durability test on a PS 217 that would rẹpresent a catalyst on a well-maintained car. Maybe it is average maintenance. You can look at the level of emissions after 50,000 miles, 0.1 grams. How much longer would that last? I don't know. We have had 70,000 and 75,000 and have given up. But it could go longer, we feel. Senator BIDEN. Do you feel as strongly as the previous witness that there is a need on the part of the automobile manufacturers to make changes within the engine to enable the catalyst to better perform its job? Is that the way you see it, that the standard has to be increased? Mr. PRICE. We feel certain things can be done that would safeguard and improve the performance of the catalyst. Senator BIDEN. What you are saying today is even if they aren't, your system will meet the requirements of the 1975 and 1976 standards? Mr. PRICE. In an extremely large percentage of the cars, and on an even large percentage if things like electronic are used that prevent ignition failures. Parts of our production we expect will be in the catalyst 2, and they are more sensitive to melting and to poisoning. That will be the monolithic catalyst. Senator BIDEN. In terms of maintenance of the catalyst, one of the things that comes to my mind is how will the automobile owner know when his catalyst is not performing, when the standard isn't being met? One of the concerns I have going the catalyst route is the inspection procedure. Let's say you fellows are correct and your catalyst functions well beyond 50,000 miles. There are a lot of auto 96-470 - 73 pt. II 31 mobiles on the road driven a lot further than 50,000 miles. How do we get the automobile that isn't meeting the standard either off the road, or get them to replace it with a new catalyst? How sophisticated need the testing procedures be to determine whether or not the standard is being met? Mr. PRICE. First, the method of determining whether it is controlling emissions or not will be at least as easy as the method of determining whether a stratified charge engine is still meeting the emission standards. Someone has to go in and test something. At its most complicated it could mean testing of each individual exhaust gas pollutant, the level of it. With the catalysts, actually, it would be quite a bit easier. With the catalyst it would simply be enough to determine whether or not that catalyst is still active. If that catalyst is still active it will be controlling emissions. It is easy to determine whether it is still active or not by disconnecting the spark plug and measuring whether there is any rise in temperature. If there is no rise in temperature, the catalyst is dead. If there is a rise, the catalyst is alive. Senator BIDEN. I envision a whole new business springing up around this country with a lot of enterprising gas stations operators who learn how to bypass the catalyst by disconnecting it for a lot of economy-minded people, using that term loosely. I know today there is an enterprising fellow at the gas station I go to, who talks about taking care of these things for people. You know about the new cars, having all things to cause people to use more gasoline. Mr. PRICE. There is an incentive to disconnect something that makes your car work less well. In today's systems, the gadgets do make the car work less well and people do want to get them out of the way. If catalysts are used properly, the guy has no incentive to bypass the catalyst because it won't affect his performance or economy in any way. Mr. DEPALMA. It doesn't make the car run better. I have data in front of me now which show, for example, if you are driving at a 50 cruise condition you are using a given amount of horsepower, of course. With or without catalysts we have seen, and I am not sure this is the real difference, the horsepower as measured without the converter at 8.8, as measured by the dynamometer 8.7. I doubt if you would see that. I am sure I wouldn't. Senator BIDEN. What you are saying is if you go the catalyst route as you suggest, there would be no appreciable difference in performance or mileage as a consequence of having to use the catalyst? Mr. PRICE. The performance and mileage would be quite a bit better than would be obtained at the same emission level without catalysts. So there is an advantage. Senator BIDEN. At the same emission level. But these people will not be too concerned about the emission level. In other words, to disconnect the catalyst, if in fact you disconnect your apparatus, the person's car will go further on the same amount of gasoline, won't it? Mr. PRICE. NO. A catalyst converter is just about as simple as a filter in the exhaust line. It is just a big filter through which the exhaust gases pass. Taking that filter out isn't going to improve the performance as of that point in time. It will have no effect on it what soever. It is the things that are done around the catalyst that are the problem. If, for example, the NO, standard, the present one, were to be maintained, and if dual bed catalyst systems were the only systems found capable of meeting those standards, there would be a strong incentive to disconnect the whole system. Senator BIDEN. Repeat that again? Mr. PRICE. If the existing NO, standard for 1976 were to be maintained, and if dual bed catalyst systems were the only ones found that would do that job, if the dual bed catalyst system were to be used yes, there would be performance and economy penalties, because of the EGR and the very rich tuning needs to keep a reducing atmosphere in the first reducing converter. So there would be an incentive if you force on the American public systems that make the car run worse. There will be an incentive to bypass those systems. Senator BIDEN. You say that will only occur if we go to dual catalysts, but in the single catalyst you are talking about there are no penalties? Mr. PRICE. There is no performance penalty, so why bypass the system? You will not improve performance or mileage. Senator BIDEN. Is there a need to use low-lead gasoline? Mr. PRICE. Yes, a need to use essentially unleaded gasoline. The levels chosen by the EPA we believe are adequate, .03 to .05. It is a projected average of about 0.025. Senator BIDEN. That is the first time I heard that, there are no penalties at all. Mr. PRICE. It is just a filter, even in the dual bed catalyst system if all you do is pull out the catalyst it is not going to improve a thing. In that dual bed catalyst system, you can forget the catalyst. In the dual bed catalyst system if you wanted to get back performance and mileage you would just tune your vehicle to the air-fuel ratio you want, say 14 or 13, and pull out the EGR. Leave the catalyst there. It is not perfecting performance in one way or another. It is the EGR and rich tuning affecting your mileage. Senator BIDEN. I wonder why the automobile companies are telling us this is such a drastic step that it is going to cost so much? Mr. PRICE. If you have been reading GM statements lately they don't say that. I have a copy here of Ed Cole's letter to Robert Fri of EPA. "In our ongoing developments and testing programs we are finding GM catalytic converters are showing drivability and fuel economy characteristics at least as good as our 1973 models." I think one of the nice implications in the middle of the article says, "Possibly we may need to use catalysts on all of our 1975 vehicles. At this time we don't know which models may be certified to meet 1975 standards. Moreover, there remains a question of whether cars that could meet these stringent nationwide levels without catalysts can provide the final economy and performance characteristics which we believe the public expects and deserves." He is saying that the cars in 1975 with catalysts are going to deliver better performance and better economy than cars without them. Senator BIDEN. What is Ford saying these days? |