Infrastructure Workgroup

1
Infrastructure Workgroup

• Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting Group Facilitator
• Scott Cassel, PSI
• Dave Nightingale, WA Ecology NW Prod.
  Stewardship Council Lead, Infrastructure
• Alison Keane, NPCA Lead, Reuse
• Dave Darling, NPCA
• Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental
• Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association
• Susan Peterson, ICI Canada
• Barry Elman, EPA
• Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT
• Theresa Stiner, IA DNR
• Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture
• Glenn Gallagher, CIWMB
• Mike ODonnell, Phillips Services Corporation
• Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California
• Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting
• Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA
• Pandora Touart, City of Federal Way, WA
• Melanie Wheeler, NH DES

2
Infrastructure Workgroup Projects

1. Paint Reuse Guidance (3)
2. National Infrastructure Model (4)
3. Infrastructure Cost Analysis (5)

3
Key Infrastructure Components

1. Paint Reuse Primer
2. Leftover Paint Age Profile
3. Leftover Paint Quantity Study
4. Percentage of Recyclable Paint
5. Infrastructure Cost Analysis
6. Connection to Lifecycle Assessment/Cost Benefit
   Analysis

4
Project Timeline

1. SCS Engineers completed first draft - June 2005
2. 4 workgroup calls since July 1, 2005
3. Gained additional funding after hiatus
4. First draft report on the model edited by the
   Workgroup and presented to SCS to finish
5. PSI research on curbside collection of latex
   paint forwarded to SCS about programs in Marion
   OR and Unincorporated Alameda County CA
6. Final report expected September 2006

5
Key Issues in the Draft Report

1. Leftover paint quantities
2. Collection points needed
3. Transportation and aggregation
4. Processing facilities needed
5. Facility design recommendations
6. Preliminary cost information
7. Conclusions and next steps

6
National Infrastructure Model (4)

• Goal
• Determine the most efficient leftover paint
  infrastructure system.
• Method
• 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.
• Include results from other projects, such as the
  Paint Reuse Manual.

7
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

8
Leftover Paint Quantities

• EPA Revised Draft Report end of May 2006??
• Anything further to report?
• This section is on hold until EPA report
  completed.

9
Collection Points Needed

• Type
• Dedicated facilities
• Co-located drop-off points
• Number of collection and aggregation points
• Community type designations
• Super-urban (very dense cities)
• Urban/metro areas (most other cities)
• Isolated cities and towns (10,000-50,000)
• Very rural (remote, sparsely populated)

10
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)
• Most popular approach

11
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

12
Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points
Needed

• Incentive based approach to encourage
  collection at non-profits, private, public
  through financial incentives
• 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

13
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)

14
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

15
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

16
Facility Design Parameters Based on Paint
Management Hierarchy Should percentages be
changed?

• 20 of paint is reused through paint swaps
• 65 is recycled into new paint
• 8 downcycled into cement additive
• 7 disposed

17
Curbside Paint CollectionMarion County, Oregon

• Marion County OR has collected paint at curb
  since 2000
• 2004 recycled 15,228 gallons
• 2005 recycled 28,695 gallons
• Paint is put into tubs with other recyclables
  including oil, batteries, glass, and automotive
  fluids
• Only 2 gallons of paint per collection
• Tub is collected bi-weekly

18
(No Transcript)
19
Hauler Fabricated Belly Box
20
Marion County, OregonCollection Truck Front
Rack - Unloading
21
PaintBack Crew Mixing Paint
22
(No Transcript)
23
Details of Curbside Collection in Marion County,
Oregon

• Dont break-out costs for paint collection from
  other materials in the bin
• Cost to retrofit truck ? 2,000
• Cost to mix paint ? 0 use juvenile detainee
  labor
• Use paint for municipal purposes and donate the
  rest to the public
• Labor, equipment, advertising, cost of buckets
  per year equates to 0.63 per gallon to manage!

24
Infrastructure Cost Analysis (5)

• Goal
• Determine the cost to implement the
  Infrastructure Model over a 5-year period on a
  national scale.
• Method
• 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.

25
Connection to LCA/CBA

• The infrastructure project can share data with
  the lifecycle project where there is overlap.
• SCS and ERG conference call confirmed that SCS
  can deliver data needed for the LCA project in
  time to complete the LCA/CBA by November.
• Consultants confident that projects will work
  well together.

26
Types of Data to be Shared

• Collection Data
• Representative Transportation Distances
• Consumers Home to HHW Facility
• HHW Facility to Processing Facility
• HHW Facility to Recycling Facility
• What Regions/Populations densities do these
  distances apply?
• Facility Data
• Operational Costs
• Utilities, Raw Materials, Labor
• Construction Costs
• Equipment, permitting, land and building costs

27
Ongoing Research Being Tracked

• New Hampshire/Paint Recycling Company Pilot
• Chittenden County VT/ Paint Recycling Company
  Pilot
• Florida milk-run collection pilot
• NCPD projects

28
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 (Paint Recycling Company)
  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.

29
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

30
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

31
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

32
Florida Milk-run 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.

33
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

34
Questions

• 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?
• Will the current Scope of Work ensure delivery of
  that data?

35
Infrastructure Workgroup

• Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting Group Facilitator
• Scott Cassel, PSI
• Dave Nightingale, WA Ecology NW Prod.
  Stewardship Council Lead, Infrastructure
• Alison Keane, NPCA Lead, Reuse
• Dave Darling, NPCA
• Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental
• Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association
• Susan Peterson, ICI Canada
• Barry Elman, EPA
• Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT
• Theresa Stiner, IA DNR
• Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture
• Glenn Gallagher, CIWMB
• Mike ODonnell, Phillips Services Corporation
• Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California
• Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting
• Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA
• Pandora Touart, City of Federal Way, WA
• Melanie Wheeler, NH DES

36
Overview Reuse Guidance Manual

• Identifies types of reuse programs as either
• paint exchanges, donation/resale, or bulking
• Asks reader to identify the goals of their
  program and choose an infrastructure
  (permanent/temporary)
• Identifies federal, state, and 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

37
Reuse Guidance Manual

• Goal
• Encourage HHW collection programs to start and/or
  expand paint reuse opportunities to maximize
  reuse and reduce paint management costs.
• Method
• Develop guidance manual on paint reuse for
  states, municipalities, non-profit and/or other
  material reuse organizations, and other
  businesses and consumers.
• Conduct significant outreach once manual is
  completed.

38
Work Accomplished to Date

• Three conference calls.
• Completed reuse manual.
• Draft Final Report available for release.
• No funding remaining on project.

39
PPSI Feedback

• Is there any other information that should be
  included in the document?
• Do you have any editing/formatting suggestions?
• Do you have any suggestions for additional
  resources?

40
Next Steps

• Circulate draft final 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
• Post on PSI, NPCA websites link to Earth 911
• Additional Promotion of Manual?

41
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?
• If not, how do we evaluate the success of the
  manual?
• Is there an opportunity to tie this in with other
  educational outreach?
• How do we get additional work done with no
  funding?