Attention: Submission to Posting on Environmental Bill of Rights Registry regarding Registry Number: PA02E0015, PA02E0018 and similar postings

Cathy Grant, Engineering Specialist - Air Pollution Control
Standards Development Branch
40 St. Clair Ave West, 7th floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5

Dear staff of the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry:

For almost fifteen years, the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association (HARA) has worked with the Ministry of Environment on projects that have seen an emission reduction from our industry of over 45% in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), a noticeable improvement in compliance levels in our industry and the awarding of a number of special honours from the Ministry for our work, including the Pollution Prevention Leadership Award. to HARA (P4). Our directors have been honoured with awards from the Recycling Council of Ontario (as have we), the Canada Healthy Environment Award, the CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment) award for small business and the P4 award from Ontario for small business on three other occasions.

At the present time, we are working with the Ministry on a new initiative providing compliance assistance for the approximately 2800 small businesses within the auto body, auto refinish and collision repair sector in Ontario.

We have written to the Minister recently, asking to meet with her on our efforts to ensure that a Certificate of Approval becomes an integral part of any shop accreditation or standards program.

Indeed the Autobody and Auto Refinish Management Committee for the Compliance Assistance Project, has discussed a possible program to assist shops in both meeting legal environmental compliance standards, but also in some recognition program for shop that goes beyond those minimum standards to a higher standard of environmental management.

Our industry has been involved with the Isocyanate review project for over a year and understands the need by the Ministry to review isocyanate standards for purposes of a Certificate of Approval

We do, however, have major concerns.

We have attached a technical review that identifies some of our concerns relating to the adverse impact on facilities that potential changes to emission factors may produce. Particularly of note is the current limited remedial actions that are available to facilities. Low application rates being proposed may not be practical in certain work applications- there are also unknown costs in extensive construction measures and associated costs. There is no data to help us predict the effectiveness of this course of action.

We have no information on the availability of cost-effective control technology, or at what costs.

We have no information on what stakeholder level (shop, supplier or manufacturer) would be the responsible party.

Our overriding concern is that standards for isocyanate emissions will be set by the Ministry for our industry, without active involvement by the industry in a cost/benefit and risk assessment review of the impacts of these standards, and their effect on the continued viability of the industry in Ontario.

We would urge the Ministry to work with our industry in a cost/benefit review of the impact of these changes and their risks BEFORE the Ministry sets standards for this industry.
We believe that a sector approach to emissions within our industry would be valuable and that by working co-operatively with the Ministry /Industry Environmental Compliance Assistance Management Committee, would be the best way of ensuring that new standards would be properly communicated, assistance as required for those shops to meet new compliance levels would be possible, and that new standards would be reasonable for the industry to meet. Indeed the background of the Compliance program activities was born from activity by the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association (HARA) in their efforts to ensure that cost-effective control technologies that were realistic for the industry and shops was adopted to achieve significant reductions in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions.

HARA will meet and exceed the industry VOC reduction level of 45% as we had committed in the Anti-Smog Action Plan.

The industry is eager to meet with representatives from the Ministry and is anticipating a presentation from staff of the Standards Development Branch at the next Compliance Assistance Management Committee meeting, based on discussions with the Ministry to date.

The many small and medium-sized businesses that make up the bulk of the collision repair and auto refinish industry in Ontario must be involved in the risk assessment, and reviews of impacts through their association and the Compliance Assistance Project. Shops worry that they may be forced to close. With co-operative effort and using the positive history of our activities with the Ministry in the past, we believe we can work together in determining the proper answers to emission standards within this industry.

Submitted by John Norris, Executive Director of the Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association (HARA) and co-chair of the MoE/Industry Compliance Assistance Management Committee for auto body and auto refinish.

½ hour POI standard for hexamethylene diisocyanate monomer (CAS # 822-06-0)
currently 1.5 ug/m3, proposed 0.1 ug/m3

½ hour POI standard for hexamethylene diisocyanate polymer (CAS # 28182-81-2)
currently NA*, proposed 3.0 ug/m3

* EAAB interim review procedure allows an aggregate POI concentration of 5.0 ug/m3 for all isocyanate compounds

EAAB interim review procedures for isocyanate compounds assumes 100% of monomers and 1% of polymers present in the mixed coating are emitted to atmosphere. Under these assumptions, using the maximum of the composition range listed on most manufacturers MSDS (0.1 - 1% monomer, 60 - 100% polymer) results in an exceedance of the current HDI monomer standard at the POI in the majority of cases of multi-tenant buildings or short distances to property boundaries (Scorer & Barrett dispersion), typical of many small collision repair facilities. In general, manufacturers have been co-operative in providing more accurate composition data for monomer and polymer concentrations, resulting in monomer POI concentrations of less than 0.5 ug/m3 and aggregate isocyanates POI concentrations of less than 3.0 ug/m3. However, potential changes to these assumptions, currently under development by EAAB may emphasize a greater release of polymeric isocyanate, which is present in substantially greater concentrations in the mixed coating. This revised approach to emission estimation alone may result in a significant increase in POI non-compliance for aggregate isocyanate concentration. Notwithstanding the revised estimating assumptions, yet to be finalized, the proposed standards revision alone will also result in an increased number of predicted POI non-compliance for HDI monomer, as the lower standard is typically not achieved in the majority of cases currently encountered. It should be noted that proposed revisions to the dispersion modelling packages used to calculate contaminant POI concentrations are also expected to generate values higher than those predicted by the current modelling software in the majority of cases. This future change will also adversely affect the ability of facilities to meet the lower standards for HDI monomer and polymer. Current remedial actions available to non-compliant facilities to reduce point of impingement concentrations are limited to reductions in product application rates submitted for approval and increasing stack height for improved dispersion. The former approach may result in artificially low application rate limits being imposed, which may not be practicable in certain work situations. The latter approach may require extensive construction measures and associated costs. In addition, the effectiveness of this course of action in resolving predicted non-compliance under proposed future modelling regimes is not currently known. Also not currently known is the availability of a cost-effective control technology that may be adopted by the sector, or what stakeholder level (equipment manufacturer, supplier or end-user) should be responsible for such technology.