The National Paint Product Stewardship Initiative

NAHMMA / Northwest Conference

Sept 22, 2005

Greater Tacoma Trade and Convention Center

Presented by David Nightingale

WA Dept. of Ecology and NW Product Stewardship Council

Some Results of thePaint Product Steward. Dialogue • A preliminary estimate by US EAP suggests

that 8-22% of the architectural paint sold becomes leftover

• Questions about how long households keep paint before it is considered waste needed and answer. So an “Age of leftover paint study” was conducted by the NW Product Stewardship Council - Paint Advisory Group

Age of Leftover Paint Study• Compiled and analyzed data sets from 5

cities or counties in Puget Sound leftover collection sites

• There are more cans of oil-based paint brought to collection sites than the proportion sold (

• Homeowners hold onto their left over paint a long time,

• most more than 5 years,

• many for more than a decade

WHATCOM

SAN JUAN

ISLAND

SKAGIT

SNOHOMISH

OKANOGAN FERRY STEVENS

PENDOREILLE

CLALLAM

JEFFERSON

GRAYSHARBOR

MASON

PACIFIC

WAHKIAKUMCOWLITZ

CLARK

LEWIS

THURSTON

PIERCE

KING

KITSAP

CHELAN

KITTITAS

YAKIMA

KLICKITAT

SKAMANIA

BENTON

FRANKLIN

WALLA WALLA

DOUGLAS

GRANT

LINCOLN SPOKANE

ADAMS WHITMAN

COLUMBIA

GARFIELD

ASOTIN

97MRWFF

Snohomish Co.

Seattle

Kent

Tukwila

Kitsap Co.

Puget Sound Survey Communities

Age of Paint by Batch Code• 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.

• 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 brand manufacturers to supplement EPA info.

• Many batch codes use only single-digit year codes (can’t necessarily tell 1994 from 2004 or 1984)

Paint Age – Initial 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 number - or single-letter coding for accurate dating – only 9 manufacturers.

SKU vs. Batch Codes

Obscured or Partially Obscured Batch Code Examples

Obscured Code

Batch Codes with “good” date info.

Batch Code with insufficient date info.

Fine Tuned Final Data Gathering

• Limited final study to cans from the 26% (9 manufacturers) that had sufficient year batch code information for accurate dating.

Collection Location        

and First Year of Total Cans Proportion by Paint Type

Permanent System Cans Dated % Latex % Oil-based Population

Tukwila, 1989 150 55 60.7% 39.3% 17,240

Kent, 1989 184 92 55.7% 44.3% 84,560

Kitsap County, 19961 160 66 35.2% 64.8% 239,500

Seattle, 1988 37 11 NA* NA* 572,600

Snohomish County, 1999 166 104 65.7% 34.3% 644,800

Totals 697 328  

Averages   47.1% 54.3% 45.7%  

Age of Paint - Survey Communities

1Kitsap County discourages collection of latex paint.

Age of Left Over Paint - Puget Sound WA 2004

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

Age in Yrs.

% L

eft O

ver P

aint

Col

lect

ed

Percent by Year 2.4 8.2 9.1 4.0 9.5 7.0 7.9 8.8 7.0 6.7 6.1 6.1 3.7 2.7 3.4 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+

Cumulative % of Left Over Paint by Age - Puget Sound 2004

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25+

Left Over Paint Age

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

of

Lef

t O

ver

Pai

nt

Co

llect

ed

50% of cans <7 yrs old

90% of cans <14 yrs old

Implications of Age Study

• If historic practices continue…

– It will take at least 6 years to collect 50% of the left over paint cans in storage

– It will take over 13 years to collect 90% of the left over paint cans in storage

– Less than 4 % of left over paint is > 20 years old

Implications of Paint Age Study (cont.)

• If historic practices continue…

– Proportionally more left over oil-based (alkyd) paint will be stored and returned than latex paint (difference between sales & collection).

– There will be significant volumes of oil-based paints needing proper disposal (generally unavailable now)

• Perhaps an average of 45% oil-based paint (±20% depending on community)

– Customers manage or retain oil-based and latex paints differently.

Other Results of the Paint Dialogue• The municipal leftover paint collection and

processing infrastructure is inadequate to manage current levels of leftover paint

• The MOU established 11 projects that are critical to develop the data needed to make sound next step decisions

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

• Most key industry and government participants have signed the MOU including NPCA and US EPA

• Also created an endorsers category for interested parties to show support for the MOU process

• Agencies representing populations of 1/2 of WA state endorsed the MOU

• Process now called the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative (PPSI)

Paint MOU Projects

• Participants are soliciting funds for projects as well as staff support for PSI to continue facilitation and staff effort

MOU Timeline

• 18 months to complete MOU projects starting April 1, 2005

• Then 6 months to work on a collaborative final agreement

• Goal: Decisions regarding a nationally-coordinated leftover paint system by April 1, 2007 or sooner

MOU Projects 4 & 5

• Project 4 - Modeling the leftover paint management infrastructure– Project needs as they vary geographically,

needs for collection, transportation and processing of leftover paint that is cost-effective and complete with appropriate regional variations

• Project 5 – Estimate costs of the infrastructure

Draft Report Integrating PPSI MOU Projects 4 & 5

• Draft report prepared by SCS Engineers for $71,500. Have contributions for about $19,000. Need about $40 - 50,000 for Final Report.

Draft report approach

• Use existing data and additional research to determine level of service to have an effective system as well as estimates for processing facilities for economy of scale.

Range of collection based on sales• 2.5 to 10 percent of sales, still being investigated,

not sure what best modeling range is• A preliminary EPA estimate is 5-22% based on

MSW and other studies• 100% of leftover paint is not possible• Process latex for recycling with offsetting revenue

or solidification and no revenue• Using work from Vermont, Canada, Portland, and

other more advanced programs

Geographic Variation

• Looking at Various population densities– Super Urban (NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc)– Urban Metropolitan Areas– Isolated Cities (Micro-politan census areas)– Rural (all other census areas)

• Looking at waste “sheds” for processing facilities, both existing capacity and gaps

Collection System and Processing

• Planning level estimates of collection points based on existing collection, retail location distribution

• Conceptual design and budgeting for collection and processing system

• Requires a lot of assumptions and judgment to fill in blanks – this will be a large task to be fleshed-out to make the final report.

GIS Preliminary Analysis

Preliminary Processing Capacity Analysis

• Existing Capacity Paint to be Processed

(Gallons /Yr) (Gallons / Yr) Capacity Needed Facilities Needed

• Northwest 1,600,000 1,100,000 0 0• West 9,500,000 4,600,000 0 0• Midwest 9,000,000 6,200,000 0 0• South 0 3,400,000 3,400,000 1-2• Southeast 0 4,700,000 4,700,000 1-2• East 0 3,300,000 3,300,000 1-2• Northeast 3,000,000 2,900,000 0 0

TOTAL Need

3- 6 facilities

(0.30 gallons per household, medium scenario, less 20% reuse)

Additional Info./Follow-up

• Most of the documents and process are available on the PSI website. Go to: http://www.productstewardship.us/prod_paint_nat_dia.html

• Contact David Nightingale(360) 407-6392dnig461@ecy.wa.gov

• Thank you very much!!