Detroit's Most Difficult Deadline

The energy crisis is not the only problem perplexing Detroit. Auto executives have been at least as worried about a pollution deadline: by late 1975, say the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, all cars must be virtually pollution free.

In an effort to comply, GM has spent $1 billion so far on pollution control, and Ford has put 6,500 people to work on the project. But all the money and brainpower have not completely succeeded.

Under the law, emissions of two noxious gases in auto exhaust--carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons--must be cut by 90% of 1970 levels in 1976-model cars. Techniques to do that, however, lead to an increase in a third pollutant, nitrogen oxides. The law says that, in 1977-model cars, they must be cut 90% below the level in the 1971s. Most auto engineers feel that they cannot meet that second deadline.

Last week Detroit got some extra time; Congress approved a measure that extended both deadlines by one year and authorized the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delay it for another year if he deems it necessary to do so. The automakers can use the grace period. They have already gone about as far toward cleaning up their cars as they can, without introducing costly new technology. GM, for example, reports that it has reduced emissions of hydrocarbons by 80%, carbon monoxide by 70% and nitrogen oxides by 40% since 1967. Such progress, gained by making adjustments on the standard Detroit engines, has been bought at the expense of fuel economy and auto performance: most new cars are hard to start, balk when rapidly accelerated and cough for minutes after the ignition has been turned off.

The next step is to add a new device to 1975-model cars that will be sold in California and wherever else the automakers wish. According to GM, this "catalytic converter" will improve gas mileage by up to 13% and make cars perform as well as in the good old days. Shaped like a muffler and attached to the exhaust system, it will also convert hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide into water vapor and other harmless compounds.*

The converter, however, raises some new and very sticky difficulties of its own. Most important is the fact that it cannot be used with leaded gasoline, since even a trace of lead would foul the device beyond repair. As a result, the EPA has ordered the oil industry to make lead-free gasoline available at all major gas stations by next summer. Another problem is that the converter emits minute amounts of yet another pollutant --a fine mist of sulfuric acid. One solution might be for refineries to reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline.

Oilmen are hardly pleased. Along with Chrysler President John Riccardo, they have long advocated postponing federal deadlines until the automakers could come up with a modified engine that would meet clean-air requirements without the catalytic converter--or unleaded gas. Congress, however, saw fit to ignore that argument last week. The result, oilmen warn, will be increases in crude oil consumption because producing lead-free gasoline actually uses more oil than making gasoline with lead additives.

At first glance, that might appear to be the last thing the U.S. should do during the energy crisis. But, say GM and the EPA, the loss of oil in producing unleaded gas will be more than balanced by the improved gas mileage that cars with converters will get. While the debate rages, precious time is slipping by. Detroit has an extra year to cleanse auto exhaust completely, but the job looks as difficult as ever.

*Detroit says another system, still being developed, would cope with the nitrogen oxides.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.