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

PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005

2

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

Workgroup is Responsible for Three Projects From MOU…

• Paint Reuse Guidance #3

• National Infrastructure Model #4

• Infrastructure Cost Analysis #5


4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftover Paint Quantities

Collection Scenario

Gallons per person

Existing Program

Gallons per person

Low 0.06 Quebec 0.06 Medium 0.11 Portland Metro OR 0.09 High 0.17 British Columbia 0.11 Extra High 0.23 Hennepin Cty MN 0.13


11

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

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

Service Level Approach to Estimate Number of Collection Points Needed

Community type Designation

Population Collection Points Needed in US (based on model program service levels)

Super-urban 14 million 140 Urban/Metro 228 million 650 Isolated Cities 30 million 1,300 Very Rural 20 million N/A


14


• 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


• 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

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

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

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

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

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

Facility Costs

• Estimates 4.1 million per facility capital cost• Estimates 1.1 million/yr operational costs


22

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 $66,720 Total Raised: $0


23

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

Ongoing Research Being Tracked

• New Hampshire/Paint Recycling Company Pilot• Chittenden VT/PRC pilot• NCPD projects• Florida collection pilot


25

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

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

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

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

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

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

Develop Infrastructure ModelNext 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

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

Guidance for Paint Reuse ProgramsMOU 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

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

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

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

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

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?

Documents

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