West Coast Environmental Law Association

June 16, 1998

Minister of Environment
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Room 484, Confederation Building
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Stewart:

I am writing to urge the federal government to immediately adopt stringent uniform national standards for sulphur in gasoline and diesel. In particular, we urge the government to immediately adopt a 30 parts per million maximum average sulphur content standard for gasoline; and move quickly in adopting low sulphur standards for off-road diesel.

With regard to the standard for gasoline the analysis by the Government Working Group on Sulphur in Gasoline and Diesel clearly shows that the benefits of a 30 ppm standard far outweigh the costs. Indeed, recent scientific studies suggest that the Government Working Group's estimates of human health benefits from a 30 ppm gasoline standard are far too low. A recent study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health showed a strong relation between the human health effects and the mix of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide to which Canadians are exposed in most urban areas. It is my understanding that these effects were not considered in analyzing the pros and cons of more stringent sulphur standards. This suggests that the benefits of lowering sulphur were likely significantly under-estimated.

In 1995, the Canadian Council of Minister of the Environment, responding to the recommendations of its Clean Vehicle and Fuel Task Group, asked Environment Canada to recommend, by January 1, 1997, a maximum sulphur content for gasoline to come into effect by January 2000. Although WCEL recognizes that failure to make the first deadline may make the latter impracticable, we strongly urge the federal government to adopt a standard that comes into affect on January 1, 2002 or earlier.

The suggestion by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute that any new standard should match fuel requirements for US Tier 2 vehicle standard is an insupportable delay tactic. First and foremost, the direct emission effects of sulphur in gasoline, regardless of effects caused by damage to emission control systems, justify lowering sulphur content to 30 ppm. Given this justification, there is no need to delay adoption of a 30 ppm standard pending determination of whether it is needed to support future vehicle technology. It might, however, cause unnecessary costs to the refining industry if Canada adopted a 150 ppm standard now, only to replace it with a 30 ppm standard once the needs of future vehicle emissions technology became clear. The solution is clear: adopt a 30 ppm standard now.

Second, tying Canadian gas standards to the needs of Tier 2 vehicles ignores the fact that the Tier 2 vehicle standard -- which cannot be adopted until 2004 or later -- is being supplanted by the National Low Emission Vehicle Standard. It is illogical to hinge Canadian gas standards on a US vehicle standard which is becoming irrelevant.

Indeed, available data shows that, for low emission vehicles (LEVs) effects of sulphur on the emission control systems may be permanent. These vehicles are already being sold on the market and become the North American standard (and BC's legal standard) in model year 2001. Sulphur in gasoline may already be causing permanent degradation of the emission control systems of Canadian cars, and this is likely to become more significant over the next few years. Immediate action is needed to guard against any such degradation of emission control systems. (Please note, based on analysis of available information, WCEL is not convinced this degradation is sufficient to excuse motor vehicle manufacturers from introduction of LEVs into the Canadian market).

It is imperative that standards be uniform national standards for several reasons. First, the analysis by the Government Working Group and the study recently published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health -- shows that air pollution is causing harm to Canadians in most Canadian urban areas, not just those the lower Fraser Valley and Windsor-Quebec Corridor.

Second, a uniform national standard will ensure the highest degree of air quality in areas experiencing the most acute air quality problems, i.e. the Lower Fraser Valley and Windsor Quebec corridor. As noted above, there is some evidence that damage to emission control systems from sulphur is permanent. Since, vehicles typically move between areas with acute air quality problems and other areas, lower standards in the other areas could lead to damage to the emission control systems of vehicles used in poor air quality areas.

We are disappointed by the recommendation of the Government Working Group regarding delaying adoption of a low sulphur diesel standard pending further study. We urge Environment Canada to work rapidly in adopting a low sulphur standard for off-road use.

We urge the federal government to adopt standards that apply equally across Canada. Federal regulation will avoid the need to duplicate efforts in 12 provincial and territorial ministries of environment.

We also urge the federal government to apply standards for gasoline and diesel to all fuel sold in Canada, not merely gasoline crossing inter-provincial or international boundaries. The federal government has often limited its regulation of products to regulation of products crossing borders in order to ensure the constitutionality. However, two recent cases indicate that a uniform national standard is preferable. First, the recent case of R. v. Hydro Quebec clearly establishes the federal jurisdiction to set environmental protection standards for the nation without proving that the issue is a matter of national concern or inter-provincial/international trade.

Second, a standard that applies to all gasoline sold avoids the possibility of annoying (although according to our analysis groundless) challenges to the federal action under NAFTA similar to those launched by Ethyl Corporation in response to the federal ban on inter-provincial and international trade in manganese based fuel additives.

We trust the above comments will be helpful and would be happy to discuss them with you further.

Yours truly,

WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

Chris Rolfe
Barrister & Solicitor

cc: Glen Allard, Chairman
Duncan Ferguson