1. Infrastructure Workgroup (Formerly Collection Infrastructure and Reuse Work groups) June 29th and 30th, 2004 Washington D.C. Dialogue

2. June 29 & 30, 20042 Infrastructure Group Members Heidi Sanborn, PSI – Facilitator Dave Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council Mike Nechvatal, IL Environmental Protection Agency Jim Quinn, Metro Regional Government, OR Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental Pierre Landry, Paint Recycling Company Jim Hickman, NC DENR Alison Keane, NPCA Susan Peterson, ICI Canada Bill Sierks, MOEA Tim Gormley and Anne Reichman, Earth911 Marv Goodman, NCPD

3. June 29 & 30, 20043 Collection Infrastructure and Reuse Groups Previous Achievements Collection Infrastructure Group –Volume of leftover paint that needs to be managed – 5% of sales or higher –Cost: $7-8/liquid gallon –Existing infrastructure: good start but not adequate –Developed draft BMP for managing leftover paint from households

4. June 29 & 30, 20044 Collection Infrastructure and Reuse Groups Previous Achievements Reuse Group –Identified existing reuse programs –Developed reuse case studies – presented at Sacramento meeting –Site visits in Sacramento

5. June 29 & 30, 20045 Goals of Infrastructure Group 1.Develop effective collection system model 2.Develop a Paint Reuse Primer on how to implement a paint reuse center 3.Network existing reuse databases 4.Finalize leftover paint BMPs

6. June 29 & 30, 20046 Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models Initial modeling outlined in white paper: “National Paint Infrastructure Collection System Modeling” (see PSI website) Model to determine collection infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. –Parameters for efficient collection. –Options for collection entities. –What makes programs successful.

7. June 29 & 30, 20047 Key Issues to Resolve to Finish Collection System Model Key Issue #1: Determine age of paint collected (quality, chemistry) (NWPSC) Key Issue #2: Better quantify amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA) Key Issue #3: Understand how much paint collected can be reused or recycled. Key Issue #4: Determine cost of required infrastructure.

8. June 29 & 30, 20048 Key Issue #1: Determine Age of Paint Collected Paint Age Study Performed by NW Product Stewardship Council - Paint Advisory Group Study underway, results in 6-7 weeks. Batch code on paint can label identifies age of paint. Initial survey of can data performed to ID manufacturer and batch code from 169 cans.

9. June 29 & 30, 20049 Key Issue #1: Determine Age of Paint Collected US EPA (Region 10) batch code data set helpful but incomplete, less than half of 23 listed manufacturers were in the sample of 169 cans. Called other top brands to supplement EPA info. Many batch codes use only single-digit year codes (can’t necessarily tell 1994 from 2004 or 1984)

10. June 29 & 30, 200410 Paint Age Study – Initial Survey Results Of 169 cans -->57% latex, 43% oil based 53 manufacturers, 62% of cans from top 11 brands 42% of cans unusable for survey data –15%: No codes found on cans –27%: Codes unreadable, or obscured (painted over) Codes recorded were often product (SKU) codes instead of batch codes Only 26% of cans had double-digit or single-letter coding for accurate dating – 9 manufacturers.

11. June 29 & 30, 200411 SKU vs. Batch Codes

12. June 29 & 30, 200412 Obscured or Partially Obscured Batch Code Examples Obscured Code

13. June 29 & 30, 200413 Batch Codes with “good” date info.

14. June 29 & 30, 200414 Batch Code with insufficient date info.

15. June 29 & 30, 200415 Age of Paint Study – Next Steps Limit next study to cans from the 26% (9 manufacturers) that have sufficient year batch code information for accurate dating. King County WA to perform two more sampling events in next week using a “cheat sheet” listing manufacturers of interest (26%), their batch code format, and likely batch code location on the can Results from surveys will determine if there is reasonable data to estimate the age of paint.

16. June 29 & 30, 200416 Age of Paint Study – Next Steps If King County survey successful, Oregon and Washington local programs will provide paint age data for region. Survey should provide an estimated regional profile for age of leftover paint in the northwest. There might be differences in the type and/or quality of leftover paint in other regions. Not sure if they would be significant. Duplication of NW study in other regions may be prudent, worth discussing.

17. June 29 & 30, 200417 Key Issue #2: Better quantify amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed Study by EPA’s Sector Strategies Program – report in draft form Study method: Refining previous PSI estimate by adding paint collected at HHW programs to paint disposed of in solid waste (from state waste characterization studies) PSI Initial Estimate of Leftover Paint Generation: –5% of sales, not including painting contractors, retailers

18. June 29 & 30, 200418 Preliminary Results of EPA Study CA: Amt collected or disposed = 14 - 16% of sales WA: Amt collected or disposed = 21 - 22% of sales Based on CA/WA data, national projection of paint available for collection 87 - 136 million gallons/year Still compiling data from other states. Yet to determine possible estimation errors (e.g., statistical variability, weight of cans, spoiled paint, dried paint).

19. June 29 & 30, 200419 Key Issue #3: Understand how much paint collected can be reused or recycled. This has not yet been written up, but there is good data from various local and regional programs to provide a range or percent recyclable paint.

20. June 29 & 30, 200420 Key Issue #4: Determine cost of required infrastructure This issue is delayed due to the need to examine the paint age and quantity issues before this can be addressed. This would be a place the infrastructure group could focus on next.

21. June 29 & 30, 200421 Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps Continue NW regional paint aging study, other regions might duplicate study method if needed. Establish age of leftover paint profile and how much can be reused or recycled. Determine the amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA Study+) –Households –Painting contractors –Retailers (?) –Manufacturers (?)

22. June 29 & 30, 200422 Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps Determine infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. Determine cost of providing infrastructure. Refine model to collect leftover paint most efficiently (expand white paper or follow-on paper).

23. June 29 & 30, 200423 Goal 2: Paint Reuse Primer On How to Implement a Paint Reuse Center Good sources of information on reuse centers All have slightly different focus –Municipal vs. Business/non-profit –Paint vs. Other Building Products –Exchange vs. Consolidation/recycling All need to be updated and made available to interested parties

24. June 29 & 30, 200424 Goal 3: Network Existing Reuse Databases Earth 911 (www.Earth911.org/1-800-CLEANUP) is matching/integrating ReDO database of 370 reuse locations into existing Earth 911 database.www.Earth911.org/1-800-CLEANUP Earth 911 looking for new paint locations/programs/sources and updating HHW/paint-related listings as part of Earth 911’s daily updates.

25. June 29 & 30, 200425 Next Steps for Reuse Determine how to develop Paint Reuse Primer. –Update existing reports. –Build on existing reports and tie together with Primer. Key steps to develop Paint Reuse Primer. –Ensure all reuse materials obtained. –Determine existing reuse infrastructure: PSI letter asking for Earth 911 to be updated (see handout). Make reuse resources available.

26. June 29 & 30, 200426 Goal 4: Finalize Leftover Paint Best Management Practices BMP for Consumers completed and turned over to Education Group  presentation covered Infrastructure group yet to determine need to develop separate BMPs for contractors.

27. June 29 & 30, 200427 Your Thoughts on Next Steps

28. June 29 & 30, 200428 Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps Determine the amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA Study+) Determine infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. Determine cost of providing infrastructure. Refine model to collect leftover paint most efficiently (expand white paper).

29. June 29 & 30, 200429 Goals 2 and 3: Reuse – Next Steps Determine how to develop Paint Reuse Primer. –Update existing reports. –Build on existing reports and tie together with Primer. Make reuse resources available.

30. June 29 & 30, 200430 Goal 4: Leftover Paint Best Management Practices – Next Steps Develop separate BMP for contractors.