Notice of Objection filed by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute
April 5, 2000
Ms. Cynthia Wright
Director General
Strategic Priorities Directorate
Environmental Protection Services
Environment Canada
Hull, Québec
K1 A 0H3
Dear Ms. Wright:
Re: Notice of Objection Respecting Proposed Canada-Wide Standards for
Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone - Canada Gazette Notice, Part 1, February 5,
2000
The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) supports the development of Canada-Wide
Standards (CWS) for identified environmental priorities. We consider Ozone and Particulate
Matter (PM) as two such priorities. However, we believe that what has been proposed in the
subject Canada Gazette Notice needs considerable revamp before it be allowed to proceed. In
our view, the current proposal is technically unachievable, is not supported by economic
analysis, ignores risk management principles, and recommends limits that go beyond what can
be supported by current scientific knowledge. In addition, we are disappointed that the
proposed CWS includes three provisions for consideration that were not adequately considered
in the consultation process that accompanied its development. Furthermore, we feel that the
material of the Gazette Notice does not adhere to the principles intended to underpin the
development and attainment of CWS as set forth in the Canada-Wide Environmental Standards
Sub-Agreement.
The attachment to this letter outlines our viewpoint in more detail.
We regret the critical nature of our letter, particularly after our considerable involvement In the
development process to date, and we want to make constructive suggestions to move
forward. We do not believe that what has been tabled in the Gazette Notice will serve
Canadians well. We recommend that PM/Ozone CWS levels that are aligned with those of the
U.S. should be set and then reviewed/amended when more reliable information is available. In
the meanwhile, governments should engage
major source sectors in a dialogue to determine what can, and should, be done in both the short and
long terms. The CCPI supports actions to improve air quality that are based on risk management
principles, sound science and economic considerations and are willing to be an active participant in this
dialogue.
Yours truly,
Kerry Mattila
Vice-President
Attachment:
The CWS Proposal is Technically Unachievable
The principle signed by the federal Minister of the Environment, which underpins the
development and attainment of CWS, calls for Equity wherein governments are
committed to achieving a consistent level of environmental quality across Canada. To
maintain credibility, our CWS development process must not impose standards that are
impossible to meet. The ability to achieve the proposed ozone standard, for some
regions of Canada, is highly questionable in many areas of our country, transboundary
flow from the U.S. accounts for greater than 50% of Canadian ambient pollutant levels.
On page 27 of the Consultation Document, the CCME PM/Ozone Development
Committee states " .. background ozone levels and the associated back trajectories,
confirming little or no anthropogenic influence, indicates that background peak 8-hour
levels of ozone occur naturally in the range of 60-69 ppb. These levels are apparently
not extremes but levels that occur frequently at a number of monitored locations
uninfluenced by anthropogenic emissions, Hence, if ozone CWS levels of 65 ppb or
lower are being considered, some provision would have to be contemplated to account
for elevated natural background levels." Indeed the proposal concedes the inability to
achieve the directed CWS in regions of Canada which are influenced by transboundary
flow of pollutants or natural background by essentially excusing them if they have
demonstrated best efforts! It is inappropriate to set a standard so close to natural
background as to make it unachievable, even with "provisions". The proposed standards
should be rigorously reviewed by independent experts to ensure that what is being
required can be met.
Economic Analysis Does Not Support the CWS Proposed Limits
In previous submissions to the CCME, the CPPI has criticized the supporting
socio-economic and competitiveness analyses as inadequate to assess a public policy
program of this magnitude. These critiques were based on both internal industry and
independent expert reviews of the analyses. We stand firm in our view that the
analyses have not shown the CWS to be cost effective, let alone socially justifiable.
The Precautionary Principle laid down in the Harmonization Accord reads "Where there
are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation." The proposed CWS goes far beyond the intent of
the Precautionary Principle and should be amended to reflect levels that can realistically
be met.
The Proposal Ignores Established Risk Management Principles
Canadians deserve clean air. However, the CWS development process must
recognize that effective risk management does not equate to zero risk. We
recommend that the "Continuous Improvement" and "Keeping Clean Areas
Clean" provisions of the proposal be changed to incorporate a risk management
paradigm.
The Continuous Improvement provision outlined in the Gazette Notice states the CWS is
only the "first step to subsequent reductions towards the lowest observable effects
level" and that even where the CWS is being met "Jurisdictions should take remedial and
preventative actions to reduce emissions from anthropogenic sources in these areas to
the extent practicable". While we support continuous improvement, the words used in
the provision imply a never ending zero-risk approach that is contrary to the established
risk assessment / risk management paradigm necessary for balanced public policy. If
pursued in a literal fashion, this provision will inflict a serious uncertainty into the
environmental policy arena, which will have negative implications for the investment
climate in Canada. The CWS cannot become a defacto zero-risk no-effects limit.
"Keeping clean areas clean" are generic words. We agree that any clean area must not
be allowed to deteriorate to unacceptable levels. However, when national ambient
standards have been established, it is unacceptable to arbitrarily restrict a region to
ambient levels below the CWS. The CCME consultation document Towards a National
Acid Rain Strategy succinctly stated the provision that "In areas where an environmental
cushion exists because pollution is below environmental limits, the consumption of this
cushion will be minimized and the opportunities for improvement will be sought”. The
proposed CWS provision is much more restrictive and could only be achieved by
stopping development or population growth. We believe that this is inappropriate for
Canada's well being and recommend that the CWS provision meet the intent of the
referenced National Acid Rain Strategy, using risk management principles as the basis
for making policy decisions.
Proposed CWS Limits Go Far Beyond those Dictated by Current Scientific
Knowledge
A key principle of CWS development is that our target standards must be grounded in
sound science. The U.S. standards for both PM and Ozone were developed based on
similar science to that considered for the proposed CWS. However, the U.S. standards
were developed using a much more rigorous scientific process, and substantially more
time and money. The U.S. standards that flowed from their process are substantially
different' than those proposed for Canada (less than ½ for PM). While it is certainly
Canada's right to set limits that are different than the U.S., it does pose the question
"Can the Americans be
that wrong?" The levels of the proposed PM and Ozone CWS are extremely low by
comparison with any jurisdiction in the world. Setting such low levels is inappropriate
given the existing degree of scientific uncertainty, especially with respect to PM.
As an example, an independent body of scientists2 has recently concluded that there
are significant information gaps and scientific uncertainties respecting PM. The U.S. has
recognized the significant uncertainty surrounding PM by committing over $400 million
to fill data gaps and then to review their standard when some of the most important
gaps have been addressed. Although we believe Canadian action to address these
pollutants need not wait answering all the scientific uncertainties, the critical knowledge
gaps must be resolved before CWS becomes our regulatory targets. As we have stated
in previous correspondence, we advocate PM/Ozone CWS that are closer aligned with
those of the U.S., that can later be altered if and when scientific study verifies that this
is the appropriate course of action.
Additionally, the fleeting references to uncertainties in both the proposal to the CCME
and the Gazette Notice are inadequate to characterize them for the public and the
CCME. The CCME and public should have this information. Environment Canada should
also recommend that the CCME members collectively engage in a substantial program
to fill these knowledge voids. So that the process does not become open-ended, the
CWS should be tied to a program designed to fill important data and knowledge gaps
and review whatever standards that come forward today in 2005.
Flawed Consultation Process
The CCME PM/Ozone CWS Development Committee prepared a proposal for the CCME
after extensive consultation with affected parties. However, the Gazette Notice includes
three provisions developed "out of process" (i.e. course PM standard, shortening the
timeframes for meeting the ozone CWS and the review period). At the November 1999
meeting of the CCME, what was tabled for consideration included aspects beyond those
that had been proposed by the Development Committee following consultation with
stakeholders. Subsequent to this meeting, these options were formalized for
consideration by the CCME at their Spring 2000 meeting. We feel this violates the
principle of "Meaningful Stakeholder Input" and oppose any of the additional options
being included in the CWS, on the grounds that they make much more restrictive the
already questionable CWS that emerged from the consultation process.
1
| OZONE | PARTICULATE MATTER |
Proposed CWS | 65 ppb, 6-hour average | 30 mg/m³ , 24-hour average |
U.S. Standard | 80 ppb, 8-hour average | 65 mg/m³, 24-hour average |
2
CRESTech/NERAM Export Panel Scoping Study on Information Gaps and Uncertainties In the IP/RP
Compendium Documents and their Impact on Strategic Options. Expert Panel Final Report. CRESTech, 1999.
![Top of page](/web/20061213060550im_/https://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/graphs/commons/up_arrow.gif)
|