1. Infrastructure Workgroup (Modeling, Reuse) September 26-27, 2005 Portland OR – Paint Dialogue

2. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20052 Infrastructure Group Members Heidi Sanborn, PSI – Facilitator Scott Cassel, PSI Dave Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council –Lead, Infrastructure Alison Keane, NPCA – Lead, Reuse Dave Darling, NPCA Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association Jim Hickman, NC DENR Susan Peterson, ICI Canada Barry Elman, EPA Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT Theresa Stiner, IA DNR Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture Glen Gallagher, CIWMB Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Services Corporation Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA Pandora Tuart, City of Federal Way, WA

3. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20053 Workgroup is Responsible for Three Projects From MOU… Paint Reuse Guidance #3 National Infrastructure Model #4 Infrastructure Cost Analysis #5

4. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20054 National Infrastructure Model #4 This project will take the results from other projects completed, such as the Paint Reuse Primer, and analyze them to determine the most efficient infrastructure system. The project goal is to develop a report, which includes a model on how to establish a national infrastructure for paint management that will efficiently and effectively collect and manage leftover paint. Total Cost: $136,800 Total Raised: $96,290

5. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20055 Projects Connected to the Development of the National Infrastructure Model Paint Reuse Primer Leftover Paint Age Profile Leftover Paint Quantity Study Percentage of Recyclable Paint Infrastructure Cost Analysis

6. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20056 Project Accomplishments to Date Developed bid and scope of work (1 month) Hired SCS Engineers to develop first draft (2 months to complete work) Held 7 workgroup conference calls First draft report on the “model” edited by the Workgroup and is ready for the consultant to finish upon availability of funds Funding short-fall to finish the Model is $40,510.

7. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20057 Key Issues in the Draft Report Leftover paint quantities Collection points needed Transportation and aggregation Processing facilities needed Facility design recommendations Preliminary cost information Conclusions and next steps

8. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20058 Workgroup Review of Draft Report Needs much better documentation and explanation behind the assumptions and conclusions Further exploration of alternatives to existing collection system, such as curbside collection Needs to add discussion on back-hauling in the transportation section In a very draft form with significant work left to complete

9. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 20059 Leftover Paint Quantities Paint collection = paint sales x collection rate Paint sales = 2.3 gal/person/yr Collection rate (based on 50% collection of leftover paint) –Low: 2.5% of paint sales –Medium: 5.0% of paint sales –High: 7.5% of paint sales –Extra High: 10.0% of paint sales Plan for an increase in collection – phases

10. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200510 Leftover Paint Quantities

11. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200511 Collection Points Needed Type –Dedicated facilities –Co-located drop-off points Number of collection and aggregation points Community type designations 1.Super-urban (very dense cities) 2.Urban/metro areas (most other cities) 3.Isolated cities and towns (10,000-50,000) 4.Very rural (remote, sparsely populated)

12. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200512 Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points Needed Service level approach – based on service at existing collection programs (people per collection point) –Need convenience within geographic area –Collection sites needed: 2,090 –Equal to 0.06 gallons/person (LOW)

13. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200513 Service Level Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points Needed

14. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200514 Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points Needed Retail model approach – based on paint distribution to retailers –Types of distribution establishments –Retail outlets –Home centers –Discount/Dept. stores –Hardware stores –Other –Number of distribution establishments: 36,773 –Collection sites needed: 12,000

15. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200515 Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points Needed Collection point capacity approach –Based on the amount of throughput to a facility (contingent on space available) –Reverse logic –Not considered valid approach –Collection sites needed: 5,000-10,000 Incentive based approach – to encourage collection at non-profits, private, public through financial incentives

16. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200516 Recommendations: Collection Points Collection sites needed: 2,000 –Equal to 0.06 gallons/person (LOW) Collection sites needed: 5,000 –Equal to 0.17 gallons/person (HIGH) Collection sites needed: 8,000 –Ultimate convenience Existing collection sites in US –1,500+ (Earth 911 data)

17. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200517 Transportation and Aggregation Assumption: each community type will need at least one aggregation point  TOTAL: 934 aggregation points Did not include backhauling in discussion Next steps: –Develop cost to aggregate and transport –Ensure that all transportation types are evaluated –Check assumption of one aggregation point per community type

18. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200518 Processing Facilities Surveyed 7 of 9 PPSI paint processors All have extra capacity Additional capacity considerations: –Population density (supply) –Transportation costs (distance for supply to travel) –End-customer (distance for the final product to travel) Primary barrier to adding new capacity: markets Paint processing facilities needed: 3-17

19. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200519 Facility Design Parameters Based on Paint Management Hierarchy 20% of paint is reused through paint swaps 65% is recycled into new paint 8% downcycled into cement additive 7% disposed

20. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200520 Additional Facility Design Parameters Assumes facility accepts 1.5 million gal/yr Facility components: –Paint sorting and processing –Paint filtering and packaging –Can crushing –Lab area (missing in report)

21. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200521 Facility Costs Estimates 4.1 million per facility capital cost Estimates 1.1 million/yr operational costs

22. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200522 Infrastructure Cost Analysis #5 This project will determine the cost to implement the Infrastructure Cost Model over a 5-year period on a national scale. The consultant will conduct a detailed analysis of costs pertaining to collecting, reusing, consolidating, transporting, recycling, and disposing of leftover paint, as well as capital and administrative costs. Cost $66,720Total Raised: $0

23. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200523 Potential Project Overlap #6 and #11 The infrastructure project has potential overlap on costs with lifecycle project. Overlap of these projects has funding implications

24. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200524 Ongoing Research Being Tracked New Hampshire/Paint Recycling Company Pilot Chittenden VT/PRC pilot NCPD projects Florida collection pilot

25. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200525 New Hampshire Exporting Post Consumer Paint for Recycling Project Manager is Melanie Wheeler of the State of NH Grant Program Objective is to determine economic and administrative feasibility of collecting paint and exporting to Canada for recycling. Performance will be measured by comparing cost savings per gallon to existing program which sends it to incineration. Project will be considered successful if the cost of export for recycling is the same or less than the cost of incineration. Will be reviewed by Infrastructure Group for incorporation of any new data into the Infrastructure Model.

26. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200526 New Hampshire Pilot Project Results Project completed fall of 2004 Total paint collected 2,094 gallons of paint Cost to recycle $7,712.25* or $3.68 per gallon Avoided cost to incinerate approx. $14,000 or $7.40/gal. Savings of approx. $7,000 (50 percent) Positive results are in spite of barriers, including: –200 miles to transport –Export rules between US and Canada –* Includes transportation costs

27. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200527 Chittenden VT and Paint Recycling Company Pilot Project Project Manager - Jen Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District Objective - Collecting paint and shipping to Paint Recycling Company for recycling. Goal - Testing to see if paint recycling is more cost effective than disposal

28. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200528 Chittenden VT and Paint Recycling Company Pilot Project FY 2004 and FY 2005 results Compared costs of landfilling to paint consolidation into own product called “Local Color” or export to Canadian paint recycler Shipped total of 9,811 gallons of paint Costs per gallon –Landfill – Cost $2.63/gallon –Export and Recycle – Cost $1.70/gallon –Consolidate and Sell - PROFIT $0.79/gallon

29. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200529 Florida Pilot Rural milk-run collections Future project - has not received funding to date Hope to implement late 2006/early 2007 Goal is to provide a $50,000 grant to fund “milk- runs” where rural areas can have an outlet for paint to be recycled and then to evaluate the success of the project by comparing the cost to collect and recycle paint against current management methods.

30. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200530 National Council on Paint Disposition (NCPD) Collection Project Project manager is NCPD, Marv Goodman Transportation and collection currently underway Other portions are being evaluated through Project Engineers at Rutgers University for feasibility May need additional funding

31. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200531 Develop Infrastructure Model Next Steps…. Raise another $38,000 to complete the “model” Contract with consulting firm to make changes to the report and finalize a recommended model to collect leftover paint most efficiently (using white paper, results from all other projects, and a consultant to assist with mapping). Raise $66,720 to implement #5 to put a cost to the recommended model depending on any overlap with the Cost Benefit Analysis conducted in #11

32. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200532 Decisions How much money do we really need to finish project #4/5? How do we raise money to finish this project? What happens if we don’t raise the money? What data do we need to start the discussions on Oct. 1, 2006 regarding the development and financing of the nationally coordinated paint management system for leftover paint?

33. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200533 Guidance for Paint Reuse Programs MOU Project #3 The Primer will be a comprehensive manual on paint reuse for states, municipalities, non-profit and/or other material reuse organizations, and other businesses and consumers. The goal of this project is to encourage HHW collection programs to start and/or expand paint reuse opportunities to maximize reuse and reduce paint management costs. There will be a significant outreach component once the Primer is completed. Total Cost: $49,360 Total Raised: $9,360* * NPCA funded the drafting of the document, not the outreach portion of the project

34. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200534 Work Accomplished to Date Two conference calls Completed a first draft of the document Changed the title from “Primer” to “Guidance Manuel for Paint Reuse Programs” Updated three case studies and have more coming

35. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200535 Key Issues in the Guidance Manual Identifies the types of reuse programs as either paint exchanges, donation/resale, or bulking Asks the reader to identify the goals of their program and choose an infrastructure (perm/temp) Identifies federal, state, and some local regs. to consider Describes operational needs for facilities and staff Encourages a container management plan Encourages a marketing strategy Provides case studies and resources for further information

36. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200536 PPSI Feedback Is there any other information that should be included in the document? Do you have any suggestions for additional case- studies? Do you have any suggestions for additional resources? Do you have any editing/formatting suggestions? –Will be reformatted for appearance by NPCA communications staff

37. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200537 Next Steps…. Incorporate feedback from PPSI into second draft Circulate second draft to PPSI for comments Circulate to HHW, PSI, SWANA and state waste management list serves for review and feedback After public review and comment, finalize and reformat for appearance Post on PSI, NPCA websites – link to Earth911 Promotion of Manual

38. PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 200538 Decisions Is this document ready to send to the full PPSI for review and comment? Do we need to develop and fund a pilot project as part of the outreach component to test the effectiveness of the document?