Paint Product Stewardship Initiative December 9-10, 2009 Scott Cassel, PSI Executive Director/Founder
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 2 THANK YOU to our sponsors! oUS Environmental Protection Agency oMetro Regional Government, OR oSociété Laurentide, Inc. oProduct Care Association
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 3 THANK YOU to our meeting coordinators! Jim Quinn, Metro OR Barry Elman, US EPA
4 Key Dates Sept. 2002 – PSI presentation to NPCA Sept. 2003 – Completion of Paint Action Plan Sept. 2004 – Completion of 4 meetings March 15, 2005 – 1 st MOU Signed March 15, 2007 – end of 2-year 1 st MOU March 21, 2007 – NPCA Board Resolution Oct. 24, 2007 – 2 nd MOU completed June 2008 – 1 st MN Governor bill veto May 2009 – 2 nd MN Governor bill veto July 2009 – OR paint law passed!!! (1 st in the nation) December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR
5 1st Paint MOU Project Portfolio 1.Source Reduction Survey/Pilot 2.Reuse Manual/Pilot 3.Infrastructure Report 4.Recycled Paint Standard (Green Seal) 5.Recycled Paint Marketing 6.Recycled Paint Regulatory Issues – White Paper 7.Sustainable Financing Options 8.Lifecycle Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis (LCA/CBA) December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 6 Last PPSI Meeting St. Paul, MN April 30 & May 1, 2008
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 7 So What Now? We Did It!!! We’re Doing It We’re Going to Do It We Want to Do it
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 8 So What Now? Increased involvement from NPCA, target states (OR, CT, VT, CA), Paint Care, other contractors Decreased involvement from PSI
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 9 Meeting Objectives Update on all aspects of project Discuss key issues Prepare for roll-out to CA, OR, VT and other MOU states Consider roll-out in non-MOU states Discuss relevance of existing MOU as well as PPSI PPSI Exit Strategy
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 10 OR Pilot Program Elements Status Update
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 11 Key Issues Collection costs Performance goals Reuse Other?
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 12 Legislation in MOU Roll-Out States and Beyond Update on 2010 legislation (CA, VT, CT) Discussion of timing of legislation in other MOU roll-out states (WA, FL, IA, NC, MN) Discussion of nature of legislation in other MOU roll-out states Consider roll-out in non-MOU states
13 Potential Rollout to Other States December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 14 Action Items from Day 1 Roll-out to Non-MOU States Many PSI member states beyond those on MOU have expressed interest in paint legislation. Some state legislators (PA, NJ) have introduced model paint legislation without contacting PPSI. Burden falling on NPCA to manage those states, but interest in PPSI group to have unified PPSI position to alleviate that burden. Develop one-page PPSI position statement (context of dialogue, MOU roll out, current status, what they can do to get in line) Develop criteria for assessing a state’s readiness (check list)
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 15 Action Items from Day 1 Criteria for assessing a state’s readiness: Expressed interest in model program Adjacent to a state with program or in roll out Retailers support model paint program Educated local governments about program Educated other stakeholders about program Held program to flush out stored paint Etc.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 16 Action Items from Day 1 Performance Goals Need for an objective standard by which to assess program performance across states. Gives flexibility to industry for implementation. PPSI could offer some guiding principles: No backsliding (e.g., as good as what is in state and hope to do better) Establish a baseline and achieve gradual, modest increases per year. Make sure that leftover paint is no more difficult to collect as it is to buy new paint. Different performance goals for states without established infrastructures. Etc…
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 17 Summary from Day 1 Performance goals will be put into stewardship plans after gaining experience with what is being/can be collected (not in legislation); opportunity for negotiation over time in plan approval process. Greater specificity needed for plan approval of performance (e.g., under what circumstances will an agency approve/disapprove plan) Likely need to address state by state
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 18 Summary from Day 1 DRAFT plan projects a recovery rate of 6.6% of paint sales in 2010 and rate of increase of 7% year after year The “pilot” will be for Oregon only in legislation, but there are other ways to acknowledge need for changes in program for other roll-out states: Report to legislature Admin agency make changes (e.g., plan submittal/approval) Laying groundwork for legislative activity in CT and VT, and continuing in CA.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 19 Summary from Day 1 6 key elements should be same in each paint bill (NPCA perspective) 1.Uniformity of assessment/funding system (e.g., how fee is managed through system so it is fair…covers cost and not exceeds it) 2.Level playing field (e.g., if don’t participate, can’t sell product unless part of program), 3.Anti-trust provision 4.Manufacturer plan submittal to state 5.State approval process of plan 6.Reporting requirements to legislature
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 20 Summary from Day 1 Paint Care point person hired (has local experience). Assessment to be higher than forecast $0.40/container projection in MN Possibly up to $0.80/container projection in OR Possible shift in how assessment charged (differential rates): Quarts (small containers), one gallon, five-gallon Tremendous retail interest in collection (but not for reuse) Starting with NPCA integrated stores (Sherwin Williams, True Value, etc.) Collection cost coverage will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and it is up to locals to make an offer to Paint Care.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 21 Summary from Day 1 Paint Care will hire different advertising agency in each state to reach demographics in that state. Earth 911 will be the database behind a Paint Care website façade. Developing brand now and content will come next based on PPSI 5 Point Guidance.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 22 Most Important Action Item Don’t “paint yourself into a corner”
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 23 MOU Status/PPSI Exit Strategy
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 24 Assessment What is the role of the MOU? What is the role of the Work Plan? What is the role of the Demonstration Committee? What is the role of the Evaluation Committee? What is the role of the Steering Committee?
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 25 Relevance of Existing Paint MOU
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 26 2 nd Paint MOU Start Date: October 24, 2007 End Date: October 24, 2010
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 27 2 nd Paint MOU Timeline July 1, 2008 – Implement Minnesota Demonstration Project Roll out to other states: July 2009 Oregon, Washington, and Vermont January 2010 California July 2010 Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, and Connecticut
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 28 2nd Paint MOU November 2007 to July 1, 2008 – Design and develop a Paint Stewardship Organization (PSO) and Minnesota Demonstration Project using “up-front funding” from NPCA until sustainable “consumer-based cost-recovery financing system” is put in place. January 1, 2008 – Finalize performance goals for the Demonstration Project, including education, source reduction, reuse, collection, and recycling markets. October 2008 - March 2009 – Evaluate the Demonstration Project Develop a schedule for extending the nationally-coordinated system to all other states by no later than January 1, 2010
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 29 2 nd Paint MOU “Strategies to reduce over-purchases of paint, such as the retail kiosk system, should be pilot tested to determine their effectiveness …” While an estimated minimum of 2,000 permanent collection points are needed to collect leftover latex and oil-based paint nationally, the best estimates for a medium to high level of customer service is more likely to require 5,000 to 8,000 collection points nationally.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 30 2 nd Paint MOU There are three likely methods for collecting leftover latex and oil- based paint. Listed in order of increasing estimated costs, they are: (1) co-located drop-off sites, (2) curbside collection, and (3) dedicated collection facilities. In order to assess the market viability of recycled paint, Green Seal certified recycled paint purchases and procurement contracts need to be identified and tracked for customer satisfaction, product quality, cost, and availability. Collect baseline data on aerosol paints (e.g., how collected/recycled, costs, baseline volumes, manufacturers, etc.) and develop a White Paper for PPSI review.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 31 2 nd Paint MOU Undertake effective consumer education to reduce the volume of leftover paint and the cost of its management. Consumers are to be informed as to which paints, if any, should be dried out (e.g., nearly empty cans, spoiled or partially dried latex paint) and which should be collected. Give special consideration to how latex paint can be cost-effectively collected in rural areas. Undertake strategies to determine the viability of recycled paint markets in order to assess the potential to increase the use of recycled paint by federal, state and local governments, as well as other consumers.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 32 2 nd Paint MOU Advance the management of leftover latex paint according to the “reduce/reuse/recycle/resource recovery” hierarchy and to make it as cost-effective and environmentally responsible as possible.
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 33 2 nd Paint MOU – collection “…develop a functional, fully funded, environmentally sound, and cost-effective nationally coordinated leftover paint management system.” “The Paint Stewardship Organization will typically need to negotiate agreements with existing and additional collection sites to fairly compensate them for their efforts to participate in the nationally- coordinated system.”
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 34 2 nd Paint MOU – collection Mission : Design, implement, and evaluate a fully-funded, statewide, post-consumer paint management system that is economical, flexible, replicable, and relevant to other states throughout the country. [work plan]
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 35 2 nd Paint MOU Timeline By January 1, 2010, as an addendum to the MOU: –Roles of PPSI dialogue participants after this MOU ends on November 1, 2010 –Revisit governance structure of the Paint stewardship Organization. –Performance goals for the nationally-coordinated, leftover paint management system (e.g., reduction, reuse, collection, and recycling). –Timeline for implementation of the nationally-coordinated leftover paint management system in all other states
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 36 Next Steps PPSI Steering Committee composition Set conference call dates/times PSI Funding Update Communications/outreach
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 37 Original PPSI Steering Committee 5 paint manufacturers chosen by NPCA (NPCA staff count as 1 of the 5 manufacturers) 1 recycler 4 paint retailers 3 state government agencies 3 local government agencies, at least one of which is a paint recycler 1 federal government agency (U.S. EPA)
December 9-10, 2009 Portland, OR 38 Interim PPSI Steering Committee NPCA, Dunn-Edwards (paint recycler and local gov’t) 0 paint retailers 4 state government agencies (OR, CA, CT, IA) Metro OR, Chittenden County VT, U.S. EPA