“Review of New Information on the Effects of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl (mmt®) on Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions and Advanced Emissions-Control Technologies and Systems”
An independent review is to be conducted on mmt®, based on provisions established in 1998 by the Canadian government, allowing for such a review upon the availability of new information. Based on new allegations by the automobile industry that mmt® may impair the performance of catalytic converters in the latest emission control systems being widely introduced to meet air quality regulations for 2006 and beyond, the review will be conducted in accordance with established guidelines and principles, to ensure it “…[is] based on careful scientific analysis and involve[s] full disclosure of data…” Afton Chemical Corporation (“Afton”), welcomes such an independent third party review, confident that as with previous claims, these latest allegations do not appear to be supported by scientific evidence.
The automotive industry has, since the 1970s, made several allegations of potential harm to vehicle emissions control systems, citing mmt® as the cause. Such claims have included unwanted deposit formation on engines, catalytic converters and spark plugs, and effects on on-board diagnostic systems. Because Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly Ethyl Petroleum Additives, Inc.) takes these allegations very seriously, mmt® has been subjected to an unprecedented level of examination and testing. This has generated not just laboratory-based data, but facts supported by over 25 years and a trillion kilometres of real-world experience.
Behind this long-standing argument lie two fundamental issues. Oil companies wish to continue using mmt® as a safer and cost effective method of producing quality, high octane gasoline. On the other hand, automobile manufacturers want to minimise their new product development and testing costs, which increase with every new type of fuel or additive that might be utilised in their vehicles on the road.
With the commercial interests of each party diametrically opposed it is perhaps inevitable that the profile of this dispute is high. More surprising, however, is the apparent failure of multiple scientific reviews to provide the lasting positive endorsement that mmt® deserves.
To date, no convincing data has ever been put forward to support the long-standing automobile industry claims of vehicle emission system damage. The Canadian Government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and scientific and standard setting bodies have all conducted independent reviews on the basis of these auto claims and have found them to be unsubstantiated.
Proper independent consideration of evidence has consistently supported MMT® use in gasoline at its current levels. No desire to ban mmt® has been expressed by the Canadian government, nor is this the cause of the current review. Yet somehow, the science-based outcomes supporting mmt® have been obscured by the legal wrangling surrounding each review, leaving the impression in many people’s minds (and not discouraged by the automobile industry) that Afton Chemical has thwarted a government desire to ban mmt® by resorting to legal action.
The last Canadian mmt® review was initiated in 1997, leading to a restriction on the importation and trade of mmt®. Canadian provinces, who were concerned about the government’s action, and Afton Chemical, subsequently challenged the government’s action by the only possible routes of arbitration and court proceedings. Both the Canadian Provinces and Afton Chemical insisted that a full independent review be carried out. Once an objective review clearly demonstrated that the claims by the automobile industry could not be substantiated because the evidence that prompted adoption of the restriction was neither credible nor substantive; the Canadian Government quickly lifted the ban and reached a settlement with Afton. Legal action was never employed as a means of forcing the continued sale of a damaging or dangerous product, but rather as a last resort to achieve a fair examination of all available evidence – which ultimately supported the continued use of mmt®.
Afton Chemical continues to welcome independent third party reviews such as the latest one, which it believes – when properly designed, conducted and interpreted – will once again reaffirm that mmt® is compatible with the most modern emission control technologies. In anticipation of such reviews, Afton Chemical (formerly Ethyl) worked with the Canadian government in 1998 to establish guidelines for conducting a proper review if new information was made available.
The release of a new automobile industry-sponsored study of MMT®, coupled with recent anti-mmt® claims made by automobile manufacturers, simply triggered the review guidelines established in 1998. Among other claims, the automobile industry has alleged that mmt® causes damage to the newest generation of high cell density catalysts. As the manufacturers have chosen not to share any supporting data with Afton Chemical, it is difficult to make detailed comment at this time.
Suffice to say, Afton Chemical has a detailed understanding of the science involved in testing and analysing engine emissions and related systems, and remains confident that once again these claims will not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. The fact that vehicle manufacturers have separately reported significant problems with catalytic converter performance in 2000 and later model year vehicles in the U.S. unrelated to use of mmt® suggests that their unsubstantiated allegations directed at mmt® may be unwarranted, just as similar past claims have proven to be unwarranted.
At present the terms of reference for this review are being developed. While Afton Chemical is pressing for full disclosure of all data along with the opportunity to clarify how the data was derived, the automotive industry appears reluctant to embrace the full disclosure principle. Either way, once the terms of reference are agreed the review is expected to take around 12 months to complete.
One final note: the scope of the upcoming Canadian review is very limited. It’s primary focus is the impact mmt® may have on the most sophisticated technology fitted to Low-Emission Vehicles (LEVs). In most other markets, where manufacturers use older, more established catalyst systems, the focus of the current review is not relevant, as the use mmt® is supported by previous reviews and analysis.
Consumers all over the world continue to drive their cars unaware of this situation. Provided their vehicles start in the morning, run efficiently and continue to meet annual emissions checks, they are satisfied with their vehicles and the fuel they buy. And there is no reason this scenario should change. Afton Chemical fully expects that the outcome of this review will be positive, following previous findings – and that any customers currently withholding judgement will soon be returning to mmt® for its obvious benefits.