|
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999Response to Comments and Notices of Objections Received on Proposed Agreements Respecting Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone, Mercury, and Benzene-Phase 1 Whereas on February 5, 2000, the Minister of the Environment published in Part I of the Canada Gazette, pursuant to subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the proposed Agreements respecting Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone, Mercury, and Benzene Phase 1, being developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment under the framework of the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization and the Canada-Wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement, Whereas the Minister of the Environment has been filed with comments and notices of objection in respect thereto, Now therefore, pursuant to subsection 9(4) of the Act, the Minister of the Environment hereby publishes the attached report that summarizes how any comments or notices of objection were dealt with. DAVID ANDERSON Minister of the Environment Introduction In accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, on February 5, 2000, the Minister of the Environment published proposed agreements with the provincial and territorial governments (except Quebec) respecting Canada-wide Standards (CWSs) for particulate matter (PM), ozone, mercury, and benzene phase 1 for a 60-day comment period. The agreements were developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) under the framework of the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization and the Canada-Wide Environmental Standards Sub-Agreement. CCME Ministers intend to sign the agreements in June 2000. In accordance with subsection 9(4) of the Act, this report summarizes how the comments and notices of objection were dealt with. Summary of Submissions A total of nine submissions were received, including two notices of objection. Two submissions were received from public health authorities, six from certain industry representatives, and one from government. Comments on the benzene CWS generally supported phase 1 and the need for future action on benzene. The only comment on the mercury CWS stressed the need to keep stakeholders involved in the development of future standards. Most of the submissions dealt with the proposed CWSs on particulate matter and ozone. The submissions from health authorities supported earlier and stronger action on PM and ozone, while those from industry expressed concern about uncertainties in the analysis and suggested that the CWS be delayed or qualified as interim. Notices of Objection Under subsection 333(2) of the Act, where a person files a notice of objection in respect of an agreement made under section 9, the Minister may establish a board of review to inquire into the matter. One of the notices of objection indicated that the proposed standards are technically unachievable, are not supported by economic analysis, and are not supported by current scientific knowledge. The second notice of objection was critical of the consultation process. Upon careful consideration of the comments, the Minister of the Environment concluded that a board of review is not necessary in this instance. This decision is based on the following considerations: -- The available evidence indicates that the CWSs are achievable, technically feasible and economically viable, and will provide significant human health benefits. Governments are committed to conducting further scientific, technical and economic analyses, and to review the standards. -- The comments are consistent with previously stated positions expressed during the consultations and were considered by governments during the development of the proposed CWSs. -- The CWSs were developed with extensive involvement of stakeholders. Improvements to the consultative process can be made without the need for a board of review. -- A board of review would be most unlikely to reveal additional information that would be relevant to the decisions to be made as the notices of objection did not bring forward considerations either scientific or otherwise that had not previously been considered. Response to Comments The submissions on the PM and ozone CWSs contained seven main themes. A description of these themes and Environment Canada's response are outlined below. Timeframe for Achieving the Proposed CWS for Ozone Public health authorities indicated that the proposed date for achieving the CWS for ozone (2015) was too long a period and would result in unnecessary adverse health impacts. Industry stakeholders indicated that the other options being considered (2010 or 2012) are too early and that the time for implementation is inadequate. Response: Given the significant health impacts of ozone, Environment Canada is intent on achieving the CWS for ozone at the earliest possible date. Environment Canada also recognizes the need to consider the full range of impacts and technological considerations associated with the potential dates when developing specific actions to achieve the standards. Level of the Proposed CWS for Ozone Public health authorities indicated that the CWS for ozone should be more stringent. Some industry stakeholders indicated that decisions have been based on inadequate data. Response: Environment Canada is satisfied that the proposed CWS level for ozone improves upon the current national ambient air quality objective and is a challenging target yet achievable within the proposed timeframes. Governments are committed to conducting further scientific, technical and economic analyses, and to revise the standards in the future as appropriate. Level of the Proposed CWS for PM2.5 Public health authorities indicated that the level of the proposed PM2.5 CWS should be more stringent. Industry suggested that setting a standard for PM was premature or at a minimum, that the standard for PM should be qualified as interim. Response: There is ample evidence that PM causes serious human health and environmental impacts and that action is needed now. Environment Canada is satisfied that the level of the proposed PM2.5 CWS is a challenging target yet achievable. Governments are committed to conducting further scientific, technical and economic analyses, and to revise the standards in the future as appropriate. Standard for Coarse Particulate Matter Public health authorities supported setting a standard for coarse PM in addition to the standard for fine PM. Response: Environment Canada agrees that the coarser fraction needs to be addressed. However, Environment Canada is also satisfied that the finer particles pose a greater threat and need to be the first priority for action. Governments are exploring the best approach for coarse particulate matter, one approach would be to develop a standard for PM rather than having two standards (PM and PM) which overlap.Uncertainty in the Analysis Certain industry stakeholders indicated that decisions have been based on inadequate data and analysis. Some suggested that the CWS should be delayed to allow for completion of the Expert Panel review of costs and benefits, and other studies taking place in the United States. Response: There is ample evidence that these substances cause serious human health and environmental impacts. While there may be some uncertainties in the science and other impacts with respect to PM, and to a lesser extent with ozone, governments are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that requires action to be taken now. Environment Canada believes that these standards are achievable both technically and otherwise. Governments are committed to improving the information base and integrating emerging information and analyses in future reviews of the CWSs, as well as the development of specific actions. The review will draw upon results of research in the United States and elsewhere, as well as the work of the Expert Panel. Background Concentrations and Transboundary Contributions Certain industry stakeholders noted that background concentrations of PM and ozone in some areas of Canada are equivalent or greater than the proposed CWSs and that transboundary sources are major contributors to the problem, particularly in Ontario. They noted that in many areas of Canada, it will not be possible to meet the proposed standards. Response: The CWS provides for the identification of communities influenced by background or natural events and transboundary pollution. Such influences will be taken into account when determining attainment of the CWS. Governments believe that these provisions are the best way to take into account different circumstances while preserving the benefits of a stronger standard for the country as a whole. Environment Canada is also committed to aggressive negotiations with the United States to reduce transboundary pollution. The Consultation Process Some industry stakeholders indicated that the consultations were inadequate. In particular, there was concern that comments were not dealt with satisfactorily and that feedback was not sufficient. Response: Environment Canada and CCME are committed to meaningful involvement of stakeholders. Indeed, the CWS development process involved extensive participation by all stakeholders, many of whom indicated that the consultative process was successful as improvements to the process were made along the way. As in all multi-stakeholder consultations, not all views can be accommodated and Ministers may choose to adopt all, some or none of the recommendations submitted in the consultations. Environment Canada is committed to considering these suggestions in future work on all Canada-wide Standards.
|
