PAINT PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Prepared Under Contract To:
Department of Ecology
Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Program
Olympia, Washington 98504-7775
As Part of the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Facilitated by the Product Stewardship Institute
Prepared by:
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Suite 300
Reston, Virginia 20190
703.471.6150
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc
1109 First Ave. Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98101
March 15, 2007
File No. 02205014.00
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1
History of the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative ........................................................ 1-1
Goals of the Infrastructure Project ................................................................................... 1-1
Focus of this Report ......................................................................................................... 1-1
Infrastructure Workgroup and Stakeholder process ........................................................ 1-2
Model Chosen by Workgroup .......................................................................................... 1-2
2
LEFTOVER PAINT QUANTITIES ............................................................................ 2-1
Method and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 2-1
Paint Sales .................................................................................................................. 2-1
Leftover Paint Generation .......................................................................................... 2-2
Leftover Paint Collection ........................................................................................... 2-2
Leftover Paint Estimates ................................................................................................. 2-3
3
COLLECTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1
Method and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 3-2
Approaches to Estimate Collection Points Needed ................................................... 3-2
Geographic Types ...................................................................................................... 3-3
Minimum Service-Level Approach .......................................................................... 3-3
Collection Point Capacity Approach ........................................................................ 3-5
Results Comparison and Discussion ............................................................................... 3-8
4
AGGREGATION AND TRANSPORTATION .......................................................... 4-1
Aggregation...................................................................................................................... 4-1
Transportation .................................................................................................................. 4-2
Transportation to Aggregation Points ........................................................................ 4-2
Transportation to Processing Facilities ...................................................................... 4-3
5
PROCESSING CAPACITY NEEDED ........................................................................ 5-1
Processor Survey.............................................................................................................. 5-1
Survey Key Findings.................................................................................................. 5-2
Capacity Analysis and New Facilities Needed ............................................................... 5-3
Latex and Oil-Based Collection Proportions ............................................................ 5-4
Processor Analysis Overview and Conclusions ........................................................ 5-5
ToC-i
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
6
PROCESSING FACILITY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 6-1
Conceptual Facility Design .............................................................................................. 6-1
Paint Sorting and Processing ..................................................................................... 6-1
Consolidating ............................................................................................................. 6-3
Re-Processing Option ................................................................................................ 6-4
Processing .................................................................................................................. 6-4
Paint Filtering and Packaging .................................................................................... 6-4
Can Crushing ............................................................................................................. 6-5
7
PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION ................................................................. 7-1
Collection ......................................................................................................................... 7-1
Collection from Metropolitan Areas and Isolated Cities ........................................... 7-1
Dedicated Facilities ........................................................................................ 7-1
Co-located Drop-off Points ............................................................................ 7-3
Curbside Collection ....................................................................................... 7-4
Summary of Collection Cost Estimates from Metropolitan Areas and
Isolated Cities.............................................................................................. 7-6
Collection from Very Rural Areas ............................................................................. 7-7
Aggregation and Transportation ...................................................................................... 7-7
Transportation to Aggregation Points ........................................................................ 7-7
Operation of Aggregation Facility ............................................................................. 7-8
Transportation to Processing Center ........................................................................ 7-10
Summary of Aggregation and Transportation Cost Estimates ................................ 7-11
Assessment of System-Wide Collection, Aggregation and Transportation Costs ......... 7-11
Processing Facility ......................................................................................................... 7-14
Design Costs ............................................................................................................ 7-14
Program Staffing ...................................................................................................... 7-14
8
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 8-1
Significant Model Assumptions and Findings ................................................................. 8-1
Leftover Paint Quantities ........................................................................................... 8-1
Collection Points ........................................................................................................ 8-1
Aggregation and Transportation ................................................................................ 8-1
Processing Facilities................................................................................................... 8-2
Processing Facility Design Recommendations .......................................................... 8-2
Preliminary Costs ............................................................................................................. 8-2
Collection ................................................................................................................... 8-2
Aggregation................................................................................................................ 8-3
ToC-ii
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
Transportation to Processor ....................................................................................... 8-3
Processing Facility ..................................................................................................... 8-3
Total System Costs .................................................................................................... 8-3
Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 8-3
Costs Related to Paint Sales ............................................................................................. 8-4
Changing Conditions to Support the Nationally-Coordinated System ............................ 8-5
Reuse Programs ......................................................................................................... 8-5
Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................... 8-5
Collection Methods ........................................................................................ 8-7
Administrative Costs...................................................................................... 8-7
Processing Costs ............................................................................................ 8-7
Overall Sensitivity ......................................................................................... 8-8
Reducing Costs .......................................................................................................... 8-8
Increasing Revenues .................................................................................................. 8-9
Marketing Challenges and Opportunities .................................................................. 8-9
A Future Possibility ................................................................................................. 8-10
EXHIBITS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Potential Leftover Paint Collection ...................................................................................... 2-2
Annual Paint Collection Rates for Any Given Service Area ............................................... 2-3
Actual Paint Collection Rates from Select Programs ........................................................... 2-4
Data Source for Geographic Type Designations .................................................................. 3-3
Paint Collection Program Service Levels - Model Programs............................................... 3-4
Estimate of Collection Points Needed in U.S. to Match Model Program Service Levels ... 3-4
Assumptions on Paint Throughput ....................................................................................... 3-5
Estimated Collection Points Needed Based on Throughput Capacity Assumptions ........... 3-7
Population Density ............................................................................................................. 3-10
Existing HHW Programs .................................................................................................... 3-11
Paint Processing Capacity - Existing and Potential Needs................................................... 5-4
Estimated New Processing Facilities Needed, By Region ................................................... 5-6
Existing Paint Processing Facilities and Associated 500 Mile Buffer ................................. 5-7
Diagram of Paint Processing Flow Chart ............................................................................. 6-2
Overview of Paint Sorting Line............................................................................................ 6-6
Side View of Paint Sorting Line........................................................................................... 6-7
Paint Processing Facility Layout .......................................................................................... 6-8
Estimates of Per-Unit Costs of Paint Collection at Dedicated Facilities ............................. 7-3
Estimates of Per-Unit Costs of Paint Collection at Co-Located Drop-Off Facilities ........... 7-4
Estimate of Per-Unit Costs of Paint Collection at Curbside Programs ................................ 7-6
ToC-iii
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
EXHIBITS (Continued)
21 Comparisons of Best Per-Unit Costs of Leftover Paint Collection Using
Three Primary Methods from Metropolitan Areas and Isolated Cities ................................ 7-6
22 Estimates of Per-Gallon Annual Aggregation Costs .......................................................... 7-10
23 Collection, Aggregation and Transportation Cost Elements .............................................. 7-11
24 Estimates of Per-Gallon Annual Collection, Aggregation, and Transportation
Costs from Metropolitan Areas and Isolated Cities ........................................................... 7-12
25 Estimates of Total Annual Collection, Aggregation, and Transportation Costs ................ 7-13
26 Estimated Construction Costs for Paint Processing Facility .............................................. 7-15
27 Estimated Costs for Facility Staffing and Operation.......................................................... 7-16
28 Paint Collection Quantities Over Time ................................................................................ 8-4
29 Total Annual System Costs Per Gallon ................................................................................ 8-4
30 System Costs Compared to Virgin Paint Sales .................................................................... 8-6
31 Alternative System Costs ..................................................................................................... 8-8
APPENDICES
A Curbside and Door-to-Door Collection
B Further Detail on Processor Survey and Facilities Needed
C Further Detail on Sensitivity Analysis
REFERENCES
ToC-iv
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by SCS Engineers and Cascadia Consulting Group with assistance from
Curt Bailey of CB Coating Consulting & Inspection Incorporated. The analysis and
recommendations presented herein were made through a collaborative process with a number of
stakeholders in the industry. The following provided information and support necessary for the
completion of this report:
David Nightingale, Washington State Department of Ecology
Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute
Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting Group (contractor to the Product Stewardship Institute)
David Darling, National Paint and Coatings Association
Alison Keane, National Paint and Coatings Association
Susan Petersen, ICI Paints North America
Jim Quinn, Hazardous Materials Program, METRO, Oregon
Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, Vermont
Glenn Gallagher, California Integrated Waste Management Board
Leslie Kline, Fresno County, California
Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Environmental
Barry Elman, U.S. EPA
Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture, Quebec
Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association
Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental
Contacts for questions on this report are:
David Nightingale, Project Manager
Washington State Department of Ecology
(360) 407-6392
Scott Cassel, Executive Director
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
(617) 236-4855
David Darling
National Paint and Coatings Association
(202) 462-6272
Stacey Demers, Project Manager
SCS Engineers
(703) 471-6150
For downloading this report go to: www.productstewardship.us/PaintReports
Acknowledgements
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. (PSI) facilitated a national dialogue among over 50
companies, industry associations, and government agencies on how to manage leftover paint in a
way that is both cost effective and protective of the environment. This report develops one
particular model of a national infrastructure to collect and manage leftover paint, including the
recycling of latex paint to the maximum extent possible, and analyzes the cost of such a system.
While the PPSI workgroup did not reach a consensus position that this model is necessarily the
best option available, the workgroup did want to assess what such a model might look like and
the extent to which it might be self-financing in light of the potential revenues that could be
derived from the production and sale of recycled paint. The analysis would have been different
had other scenarios about recycling and final disposition been chosen. There was no attempt to
quantify these differences.
LEFTOVER PAINT QUANTITIES
The basic method to estimate leftover paint quantities was to 1) estimate paint sales and 2)
estimate how much of that paint is generated as unwanted leftover paint and then is collected by
an effective infrastructure.
Paint Sales
In 2000, approximately 637 million gallons of architectural paint were sold in the United States.
According to the 2000 Census, the United States included 281 million people and 105 million
households in 2000. These figures imply that paint sales in the United States average:

2.3 gallons of paint sold per person per year, or

6.0 gallons of paint sold per household per year
Leftover Paint Generation
Two studies were used to estimate leftover paint generation. In its Background Report, the
Product Stewardship Institute estimated that leftover paint generation is 16 million to 35 million
gallons annually, which implies that 2.5 to 5.5 percent of paint sold remains as leftover paint. A
preliminary EPA study estimated that between six and 16 percent of paint sold remains as
leftover paint. Accordingly, this study considered scenarios of 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15
percent of paint sales resulting in leftover paint, consistent with both the PSI and EPA studies.
Leftover Paint Collection
A nationally-coordinated lefteover paint collection system was modeled using various collection
rates based on performance goals of Eco-Peinture in Quebec, specifically that 25, 50, and 75
percent of leftover paint would be collected.
Executive Summary - 1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Exhibit ES-1 presents the range of possible leftover paint as a percentage of sales based on the
range of leftover paint generation and the range of leftover paint collection.
EXHIBIT ES-1: POTENTIAL LEFTOVER PAINT COLLECTION
(As a percentage of paint sales)
GENERATION RATE
(Percent of Sales)
COLLECTION RATE
25%
50%
75%
5%
1.25%
2.50%
3.75%
10%
2.50%
5.00%
7.50%
15%
3.75%
7.50%
11.25%
The above exhibit indicates that between 1.25 percent and 11.25 percent of paint sales could be
collected as leftover paint. The following scenarios may indicate successive growth over time
within a program or simply varied program success depending on convenience and promotion:

Low:
2.5 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

Medium:
5.0 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

High:
7.5 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

Extra High: 10.0 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint
The range of 2.5 percent to 10.0 percent of paint sales collected as leftover paint is consistent
with collection rates from active programs in the U.S. and Canada. A well executed, mature
program with an extensive network of collection sites may in time be able to obtain collection
rates above those already experienced, corresponding to the “high” and “extra high” scenarios.
COLLECTION
Building upon past research from PSI that identified permanent collection points to be the most
cost-effective method to collect leftover paint, two methods are used to estimate the number of
collection points that would be needed under a nationally-coordinated system. These methods
include the Minimal Service Level Approach and the Collection Point Capacity Approach.
Minimal Service Level Approach
This approach estimates the number of collection points based on the “service level” of existing
paint collection programs. The service level is defined as the number of collection points that
exist relative to the size of the population.
This analysis indicates that approximately 2,090 collection points would be needed nationwide to
approximate the level of service currently offered by existing programs in Portland, Oregon, and
British Columbia, and Vancouver, Canada. A nationally promoted and coordinated leftover paint
collection infrastructure would be expected to collect more paint than is currently collected even
Executive Summary-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
in these model programs. Therefore, this total is considered to be a low-end estimate of the total
number of collection points needed to provide a minimal level of service
Collection Point Capacity Approach
This approach is based on the number of collection sites that would be needed to manage the
expected quantity of paint generated, using assumptions about the amount of paint that could be
collected per site and the population density in different geographic areas. It is also assumed that
each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area will need at least one collection point.
The method of analysis based on collection point capacity assumptions estimates that the number
of collection points needed could range from as low as 1,900 (if collection points can handle
more cages and paint quantities are low) to as high as almost 11,000 (if collection points each
handle fewer cages and paint quantities are extra high).
AGGREGATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Aggregation
Each collection point could, in theory, ship paint directly to the processor. However, the
economics of trucking improve with increased size of the trailer, called a “van” by the trucking
industry. A 53-foot van is generally the longest allowed trailer, is generally limited to 42,000
pounds of freight, and could therefore hold several thousand gallons of paint. However, most
collection points will not be able to store this many cans at any one time. Therefore, a system of
combining paint can boxes or cages from individual collection points at an aggregation facility
will be needed.
The core activity that would take place at an aggregation facility is unloading pallets, cages, or
gaylord boxes of paint cans from a smaller truck and re-loading them onto a larger truck for
long-distance truck transport. The total number and mix of aggregation facilities will be
determined by local economics and logistics. However, for the purposes of providing planninglevel estimates of the number of aggregation points needed, it is assumed that each metropolitan
area in the U.S. will need at least one stand-alone aggregation point, whereas smaller
communities (“isolated cities”) can operate without a stand-alone aggregation facility.
Therefore, over 350 stand-alone aggregation points throughout the country are needed, one for
each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
Transportation
Transportation from collection points to aggregation points was modeled using “milk-run”
logistics. Under this model, a truck makes one or several stops to pick up leftover paint along a
fixed route. This “milk run” type system includes subsequent transport to an aggregation point.
One commonly used delivery truck is a 24-foot box van, which can accommodate 12 pallets and
26,000 pounds. Costs for this type of system vary, but are generally priced either by the stop or
by the hour, and are estimated to be a significant fraction of the total cost of a collection and
transportation system for leftover paint.
Executive Summary-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Shipping from the aggregation points will be least costly in 53-foot box vans. Long-haul
trucking costs are developed in Section 7, with variations depending on distance and area of the
country.
PROCESSING CAPACITY NEEDED
Increasing the quantities of leftover paint collected through a nationally-coordinated
infrastructure may also require additional processing capacity, above what already exists, where
paint is sorted, screened, and recycled into new paint. To estimate existing processing capacity
and understand how and where additional processing capacity may be needed, this study
conducted a survey of existing paint recycling facilities. With the exception of one processor,
demand for the final product (recycled paint either at retail, commercial or export
markets) is the barrier to processing additional leftover paint (e.g., the supply).
Capacity Analysis and New Facilities Needed
Exhibit ES-2 displays basic results from an analysis of the capacity for recycled paint processing
in the United States. It was assumed that paint swaps located at collection facilities could reduce
the quantity of paint flowing to processors by 20 percent as compared to the quantities estimated
to be collected. Therefore, the paint to be processed presented in Exhibit ES-2 assumes a 20
percent reduction in the quantity of leftover paint generated for paint reuse.1 It also assumes a
medium-level scenario of 0.11 liquid gallons collected per person.
EXHIBIT ES-2: PAINT PROCESSING CAPACITY
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL NEEDS
REGION
Northwest
West
Midwest
South
Southeast
East
Northeast
TOTAL
Existing Capacity
(annual gallons)
Paint to be Processed
(0.11 gallons per person, medium
scenario, less 20% reuse)
Additional
Capacity Needed
1,600,000
9,500,000
9,000,000
0
0
0
3,000,000
23,100,000
1,100,000
4,500,000
5,600,000
3,300,000
5,100,000
3,800,000
2,300,000
25,700,000
0
0
0
3,300,000
5,100,000
3,800,000
0
12,200,000
The capacity analysis indicates major capacity gaps exist in the South, the Southeast and the
East. Using a minimum facility design capacity of one million gallons per year and a maximum
facility capacity of six million gallons per year (the highest capacity of facilities interviewed),
the number of processing facilities that may be needed under the four collection scenarios is
presented in Exhibit ES-3.
1
There is some concern about reuse programs skimming the best feedstock from a paint reuse program.
Executive Summary-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT ES-3: ESTIMATED NEW PROCESSING FACILITIES NEEDED
Level of Collection Assumed
Low
(0.06 gals per
person)
Medium
(0.11 gals per
person)
High
(0.17 gals per
person)
Extra High
(0.23 gals per
person)
Northwest
0
0
0-1
0-1
West
0
0
0
0
Midwest
0
0
0
1-3
South
1-2
1-4
1-6
2-7
Southeast
1-3
1-6
2-8
2-11
East
1-3
1-4
1-6
2-8
0
0
0-1
1-2
REGION
Northeast
TOTAL
3-8
3 - 14
4 - 22
Paint quantities presented in this exhibit include both latex and oil-based paint.
8 - 32
PROCESSING FACILITY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The conceptual layout of the facility design is shown in Exhibit 14. The design is based on a
facility which processes approximately 50,000 gallons of usable latex paint per month, or 0.6
million gallons of paint annually. This does not include the quantity of unusable paint or the
proportion of oil-based paint that will be bulked for use as a fuel. The facility operations could
be expanded to accommodate an increased capacity by adding a second shift or additional tanks
and canning equipment, or both. Facility operations are based on a five-day work week, with an
8-hour shift.
The containerized paint arrives at the facility in gaylord boxes and is offloaded at a receiving
loading dock area. The gaylord boxes are then taken by forklift to an incoming paint storage area
where they will eventually be pulled for processing.
Gaylord boxes are transported by forklift from the incoming paint storage area to the processing
line. The first sort would eliminate solvent and oil based paints and containers with unreadable
labels. Flammable product would be transported in bins to the flammable product containment
room for consolidation. Latex paint cans are individually loaded onto the corresponding
conveyer belt that transports the paint up to the mechanical opener and then sorted by color.
The acceptable containers are sorted by color and drained by gravity into 300-gallon plastic totes
that are moved by forklift to the processing area when filled. The processing area would have
three 1,000-gallon and one 500-gallon tanks with dedicated high-speed dispersers equipped with
circulation type blades, two-inch air pumps to in-line cartridge filters, and canning line.
Packaging of the paint will take place after onsite quality control testing has been conducted.
Wastewater collected from the hose, filtration, and pumping equipment is captured and treated
off-site. Empty metal containers are crushed, and sent for recycling. Unusable latex paint is
shipped to a disposal site and flammable liquids are shipped to an energy recover site.
Executive Summary-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION
Costs for collection, aggregation, and transportation are expressed in terms of dollars per gallon.
Since the size and scale of the collection infrastructure will vary widely according to local
conditions, expressing costs on a per-gallon basis allows for straight-forward scaling of costs for
various sized facilities and geographies.
Collection Costs
Three primary possibilities for leftover paint collection from metropolitan areas and isolated
cities include dedicated facilities, co-located drop-off points, and curbside collection. Leftover
paint collection from rural areas will consist of mobile collection events.
Dedicated facility costs are estimated from available cost information available from 20 HHW
facilities across the U.S. Co-located drop-off collection site costs are based on paint drop-off
points operated by Product Care in British Columbia that are co-located with bottle recycling
centers. Curbside collection costs for paint are based on curbside collection programs for used
motor oil. Ultimately, the relative mix of leftover paint collection options will depend heavily on
local conditions and a balance of cost and convenience. Exhibit ES-4 presents a weighted
average of collection costs based on a hypothetical system with half of all leftover paint collected
at dedicated facilities, 45 percent collected at co-located drop-off points, and five percent
collected curbside.
EXHIBIT ES-4: COMPARISONS OF BEST PER-UNIT COSTS OF LEFTOVER PAINT
COLLECTION USING THREE PRIMARY METHODS FROM METROPOLITAN
AREAS AND ISOLATED CITIES
Dedicated Facility
(50% of volume)
Co-located Drop-Off
(45% of volume)
Curbside
(5% of volume)
Hypothetical Overall
Per Pound
$0.22
$0.12
$0.19
$0.18
Per Liquid Gallon
$2.48
$1.40
$2.10
$1.98
Per Gallon Can
$0.99
$0.56
$0.84
$0.79
METRIC
Collection costs from very rural areas are based on mobile collection events. Using a “milk-run”
type of system, a truck will be routed to predetermined areas for which paint collection has been
promoted. The collected paint cans will be loaded into gaylord boxes and transported to the
nearest collection site within 250 miles. The cost for this system is $1.43 per gallon.
Aggregation Costs
Costs for aggregation and transportation can vary widely, but our estimates focused on
establishing a small stand-alone aggregation facility in a warehouse and then operating a 24-foot
box van in a “milk run” route to collect paint from individual collection points. Exhibit ES-5
summarizes the estimated individual and total costs of aggregating paint.
Executive Summary-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT ES-5: ESTIMATES OF PER-GALLON ANNUAL AGGREGATION COSTS
AGGREGATION FACTOR
PER-GALLON COST
“Milk Run” Transportation
$0.94/gallon
Operation of Aggregation Facility
$0.66/gallon
Labor at Aggregation Facility2
$0.07/gallon
Materials at Aggregation Facility
$0.31/gallon
Total Aggregation Costs
$1.98/gallon
Transportation Costs
Transportation to a processing center will be least costly if performed using 53-foot box vans.
Transportation costs per gallon varied considerably based on distance to the nearest recycler, but
the overall weighted average across all metropolitan areas was $0.32 per gallon.
Processing Facility Costs
A processing facility designed to process 600,000 gallons of latex paint (accepting one million
gallons of paint including oil-based paint and unusable latex) was priced at $4.2 million. Annual
operational costs are expected to be approximately $3.0 million. The facility could be upgraded
to process up to 1.2 million gallons of latex paint (accepting two million gallons of paint
including oil-based paint and unusable latex) by running a second shift. Annual operational
costs will increase with an additional shift.
Administration Cost
Administration cost is based on cost estimates of a third-party organization in Washington and
Oregon to coordinate electronics recycling (Walter Alcorn, Alcorn Consulting, 2006) at $1.35
per liquid gallon.
Summary of Costs
Exhibit ES-6 provides the best estimates of the per-gallon costs needed to operate a nationally
coordinated infrastructure for collecting leftover paint. These are planning-level, order-ofmagnitude costs that represent the best estimates given available information. In particular, the
variability in each of these costs is potentially significant.
2
Assumes inspection of individual cans will not be needed
Executive Summary-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT ES-6: TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS PER GALLON
SYSTEM FACTOR
PER-GALLON COSTS
Collection
$1.98
Aggregation
$1.98
Transportation to Recycler
$0.32
Processing
$2.96
Administration
$1.35
Total
$8.59
*Includes all collected latex and oil-based paint
CONCLUSIONS
Using system costs presented in Exhibit ES-6, various scenarios of recycled paint sales were
modeled ranging from $0 to $20 per gallon. In scenarios where the paint sales were modeled, as
opposed to giving the latex paint away for free, the sales income was reduced by 25 percent to
account for promotion, distribution and sales for that latex paint. The remaining 75 percent of
sales revenue provided an offset of system costs. At between $15 and $20 per gallon, a
nationally coordinated leftover paint management system would begin generating net revenue.
Modeling assumptions were made with conservative cost estimates and a sensitivity analysis
indicates that there is greater likelihood of reduced system costs than increased system costs
upon actual implementation. If actual system costs are less, a break even point would be realized
with a lower sale price.
Exhibit ES-7 provides a summary of the additional cost to virgin paint sales to cover the cost of
the paint management system under the four paint collection rate scenarios. Variations in system
development, some estimated in this report, can affect the net costs presented in Exhibits ES-6
and ES-7 up to 10 percent. The low collection rates column would reflect a system that exists in
a few parts of the U.S. and Canada but would need to be developed in much of the U.S. The
intent of the various paint sale scenarios is to determine the price that recycled paint would need
to be sold at for the entire cost of the paint management infrastructure to be covered. While the
current sale price of recycled paint has been less than $10, the higher pricing scenarios are
included only to be instructive as to the price point that needs to be reached for the sale of
recycled paint to raise sufficient revenue to finance the entire leftover paint management
infrastructure.
Executive Summary-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT ES-7: NET COST OF PAINT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PER VIRGIN PAINT GALLONS SOLD
COLLECTION RATE
METRIC
Assuming $0/gallon sale price
Assuming $5/gallon sale price
Assuming $10/gallon sale price
Assuming $15/gallon sale price
Assuming $20/gallon sale price
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EXTRA HIGH
$0.24
$0.18
$0.11
$0.05
-$0.01
$0.43
$0.32
$0.20
$0.09
-$0.02
$0.67
$0.49
$0.31
$0.14
-$0.04
$0.90
$0.67
$0.43
$0.19
-$0.04
Executive Summary-9
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF THE PAINT PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE
In 2003, the Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. (PSI) began facilitating a national dialogue
aimed at reducing the generation of leftover paint, while increasing reuse and recycling
opportunities. With the support of dialogue participants from over 50 companies, industry
associations, and government agencies, these discussions have resulted in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The MOU is an agreement among partners with varying views on how to
manage leftover paint in a way that is both cost effective and protective of the environment. The
MOU outlines work on eleven projects scheduled for completion by October 2006 that will
become the basis for developing a nationally-coordinated paint management system.
This Infrastructure Report has been conducted based on the assumption that a nationally
coordinated program will be developed for the collection of leftover latex and oil-based paint.
Concurrent with this effort is another project being conducted under the auspices of the Paint
Product Stewardship Initiative – the Lifecycle Project. That project may influence decisions as to
the extent of the infrastructure that will be developed for managing leftover latex paint.
GOALS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
The two primary goals of the Infrastructure Project are to:

Use existing information and new research to develop a model of a cost-effective,
national infrastructure to collect and manage leftover paint, including the recycling of
latex paint to the maximum extent possible. The purpose of this model is to provide
insight on the development and operation of regionally specific infrastructure to manage
leftover paint in the United States.

Analyze the costs of constructing and operating such an infrastructure.
This report presents results of the Infrastructure Project effort.
FOCUS OF THIS REPORT
This report presents recommendations concerning the development of a nationally-coordinated
leftover paint management system. Major topics addressed in this report include:

Leftover Paint Quantities - Describes the assumptions and method for estimating how
much paint is likely to be generated and collected. The analysis and recommendations
concerning a nationally-coordinated infrastructure build directly from these quantities.

Collection Points Needed - Describes the assumptions, method, and preliminary
recommendations for the number of collection points that are needed nationally and
regionally.
1-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative

Aggregation and Transportation – Describes methods for aggregating leftover paint
quantities from collection points for transport to a processing facility.

Processing Facilities Needed - Describes the survey of existing processors and
recommends regions where additional processing facilities would be needed.

Facility Design Recommendations - Describes a paint processing facility with capacity
to process up to 1.2 million gallons of paint annually.

Preliminary Cost Information – Estimates costs associated with the collection,
aggregation, transportation, and processing of leftover paint.

Conclusions and Next Steps – Summarizes recommendations for a nationallycoordinated leftover paint management system.
Several appendices are also attached which provide further detail, as needed. These are
referenced in the text.
The Paint Product Stewardship Initiative is focused only on architectural paint. Specialty paint,
paints used for art, and other paints are not included.
INFRASTRUCTURE WORKGROUP AND STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
Research strategy, assumptions, and results derived for this study were presented to the
Infrastructure Workgroup on a periodic basis. The Infrastructure Workgroup consisted of a
select group of stakeholders representing the paint industry government agencies, paint recyclers,
and retailers. The Product Stewardship Institute facilitated this workgroup, with assistance from
the Washington Department of Ecology.
MODEL CHOSEN BY WORKGROUP
The model developed in this report involves generation, collection, aggregation, transportation,
and processing of leftover paint. The analyses of generated quantities and collection,
aggregation, and transportation methods were straightforward; however, there are various
methods to recycle leftover paint. Consolidation was chosen as the recycling method to model
given the budget, schedule, and the availability of price information. In a collaborative process,
the Workgroup chose the following processing methods because they were technically feasible
and enough information was available to model them:

Energy Recover for oil-based paints;

Disposal for unusable latex paint; and

Consolidation for recyclable latex paint.
1-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 2
LEFTOVER PAINT QUANTITIES
Collection processing, and management systems for leftover paint require a reasonable
understanding of how much leftover paint is likely to be collected. This section describes the
assumptions and method used to estimate quantities of paint (both latex and oil-based) that
would be collected through a nationally-coordinated system.
METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS
The basic method to estimate leftover paint quantities was to 1) estimate paint sales and 2)
estimate how much of that paint is generated as unwanted leftover paint and then is collected by
an effective infrastructure. The goal of this exercise was not to develop a single number, but
rather to develop a reasonable range of planning-level estimates that can be used to recommend
an optimal infrastructure. These estimates were developed on a per-person and per-household
basis so that they could be applied to individual communities for which infrastructure
development would be necessary.
The following equation was used as part of the method:
Paint collection (gal./person) = Paint sales (gal./person) x Collection rate (percent)
Following are derivations of the two terms of this equation: paint sales and collection rate.
Paint Sales
According to the Product Stewardship Institute’s Background Report (PSI, 2004), 637 million
gallons of architectural paint3 were sold in the United States in 2000, the latest year for which
comprehensive figures were available at the time PSI assembled the report. According to the
2000 Census, the United States included 281 million people and 105 million households in 2000
(Census Bureau, 2001). These figures imply that paint sales in the United States average:

2.3 gallons of paint sold per person per year, or

6.0 gallons of paint sold per household per year
Although these figures are based on 2000 data, they are believed to be reasonable planning-level
estimates for the present if applied to current population data4. It was assumed that these figures
3
4
Based on NCPA industry data, the composition of architectural paint sold in the U.S. is 54 percent interior paint, 27 percent
exterior paint, 11 percent stains, 2 percent clears, 1 percent lacquers, and 5 percent other. It is expected that the infrastructure
will manage paints, stains, clears, and lacquers; however, other material such as bituminous roof, mastic, form release, and
wood preservatives will likely not be managed. Nonetheless, this material is still included and is not expected to significantly
alter the conclusions of this study.
Use of more recent paint sales figures would not be expected to have significant results on the conclusions of this study.
2-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
could be applied to current population or household data in any given community or region to
estimate paint sales.
Leftover Paint Generation
Some (usually small) fraction of paint purchased for any given project remains unused at the end
of the project. In its Background Report, the Product Stewardship Institute estimated that
leftover paint generation is 16 million to 35 million gallons annually (PSI, 2004). Based on 637
million gallons of paint sales, these figures imply that 2.5 percent to 5.5 percent of paint sold
remains as leftover paint. However, a preliminary EPA study has estimated that six percent to 16
percent of paint sold remains as leftover paint (ABT July 2006). Because actual paint collection
(not just generation) is higher than five percent in some areas, the Infrastructure Workgroup
believed that five percent is likely to be the low end of leftover paint generation. Accordingly,
this study considered scenarios of 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent of paint sales resulting in
leftover paint, consistent with both the PSI and EPA studies.
Leftover Paint Collection
Leftover paint may experience a variety of dispositions: it may be kept for future use or touchup, given to friends or neighbors, disposed (properly or improperly), or recycled. As a result,
even with high levels of promotion, few paint collection programs are likely to capture more than
75 percent of the leftover paint in a region. For example, Eco-Peinture in Quebec has established
incremental performance goals of capturing 25, 50, and 75 percent of a region’s leftover paint goals that were also considered for this study.
Furthermore, no program is going to reach its full effectiveness during the first few years of
operation. Experience from other programs indicates that quantities of leftover paint collected
generally increase steadily (anywhere from 10 percent to 100 percent increase per year) for four
to six years, at which point growth slows to under 10 percent per year5.
Exhibit 1 presents the range of possible leftover paint as a percentage of sales based on the range
of leftover paint generation and the range of leftover paint collection.
EXHIBIT 1: POTENTIAL LEFTOVER PAINT COLLECTION
(As a percentage of paint sales)
GENERATION RATE
(Percent of Sales)
5
COLLECTION RATE
25%
50%
75%
5%
1.25%
2.50%
3.75%
10%
2.50%
5.00%
7.50%
15%
3.75%
7.50%
11.25%
Data was reviewed from Eco Peinture and Product Care as well as Nightingale, David and Rachel Donnette, 2002.
“Household Hazardous Waste” in Handbook of Solid Waste Management. McGraw-Hill: New York, pp. 10.1-10.6.
2-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
The above exhibit indicates that between 1.25 percent and 11.25 percent of paint sales could be
collected as leftover paint. However, the extreme examples on both the low and high ends are
unlikely. As a result, based on the above considerations and discussion within the Infrastructure
Workgroup, the following planning-level scenarios are used to represent a reasonable range of
paint collection. These scenarios may indicate successive growth within a program or simply
varied success depending on convenience and promotion:

Low:
2.5 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

Medium:
5.0 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

High:
7.5 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint

Extra High: 10.0 percent of paint sales will be collected as leftover paint
The range of 2.5 percent to 10.0 percent of paint sales collected as leftover paint is consistent
with collection rates from active programs in Canada. For example, Éco-Peinture, the extensive
paint-collection program in Québec, Canada, reports that they collect approximately 3.5 percent
of paint sold annually in their region, and their quantities continue to increase (Portelance, 2005).
Available data from other programs range from 1.6 percent of paint sales being collected in
Iowa’s program (where latex paint collection is discouraged in many jurisdictions) to 7.3 percent
in Portland Metro’s program, with three other programs in the five to six percent range
(Collection System White paper).
LEFTOVER PAINT ESTIMATES
Exhibit 2 illustrates the quantities of paint that would be expected to be collected per household
and per person based on the four collection rate scenarios mentioned above. These quantities are
calculated using the following equation: Paint collected (gallons/person or household) = Paint
sales (2.3 gallons/person or 6.0 gallons/household) x Collection rate (percent)6.
EXHIBIT 2: ANNUAL PAINT COLLECTION RATES
FOR ANY GIVEN SERVICE AREA
6
COLLECTION SCENARIO
GALLONS PER HOUSEHOLD
GALLONS PER PERSON
Low
0.15
0.06
Med
0.30
0.11
High
0.45
0.17
Extra High
0.60
0.23
An example of this calculation is the extra high scenario: Paint collection = (2.3 gallons per person sold) x (10.0% of sales are
collected) = 0.23 gallons of paint collected per person.
2-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Note that these figures align closely with actual collection rates from existing successful
programs. For example, data presented in the Collection White Paper indicate that existing
programs collect quantities of paint as presented in Exhibit 3.7
EXHIBIT 3: ACTUAL PAINT COLLECTION RATES FROM SELECT PROGRAMS
PROGRAM
GALLONS PER HOUSEHOLD
GALLONS PER PERSON
Quebec
0.14
0.06
Portland Metro, OR
0.26
0.09
British Columbia
0.26
0.11
Hennepin County, MN
0.32
0.13
Washington State
0.28
0.12
Based on these figures, the planning-level estimates displayed in Exhibit 2 appear reasonable. A
well executed, mature program with an extensive network of collection sites may in time be able
to obtain collection rates above those already experienced, corresponding to the “high” and
“extra high” scenarios.
7
Data for Portland Oregon were revised based on a May 31, 2005 interview with Jim Quinn of Metro. Data for Washington
State provided by David Nightingale of Washington State Department of Ecology.
2-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 3
COLLECTION
A major focus of this project has been on recommending what type and how many collection and
aggregation points will be needed for managing the quantities of leftover paint.
Previous research documented in the Collection White Paper has identified that permanent
collection points are the most cost-effective method of collecting leftover paint in areas where
population is dense enough to support the maintenance and operation of such facilities. In very
rural areas, mobile or periodic collection events are typically the most cost-effective collection
method. Permanent collection points are the most common and widespread method of collecting
leftover paint in quantity from the end-user and is discussed first in this section
This project also examined two additional leftover paint collection methods – curbside and doorto-door collection. Using dedicated vehicles to collect leftover paint curbside would not be cost
effective given the high costs of operating a truck that would collect only a few gallons of paint
from dispersed households. However, collecting paint in the same truck as other curbside
recyclables may be a cost effective method for some communities. Collection rates are typically
enhanced where the convenience of curbside collection is provided. Building on existing
recycling infrastructures has potential advantages of reduced collection and capital costs, as well
as increased convenience. Consequently, the potential costs and benefits of this method of
collection for leftover paint need to be carefully considered. On the other hand, door-to-door
collection costs appear to be prohibitively expensive, at $105 per household, and were not
considered further in this analysis. Appendix A contains additional information on curbside
collection programs for leftover paint in Marion County, Oregon and Alameda County,
California.
Permanent collection points can take one of two basic forms:

Dedicated facilities - Most leftover paint collection currently takes place at communities
that host household hazardous waste (HHW) collection facilities. HHW facilities are an
example of a dedicated facility – where the primary goal is to take paint and other
materials back from the public. Dedicated facilities also could be devoted exclusively to
paint, in which case they could include processing capacity, such as Portland Metro’s
facility. Dedicated facilities also could serve as aggregation points to which paint is
transported from individual drop-off points (described below) for aggregation and further
transport to a processor.

Co-located drop-off points - Simple drop-off points could be sited at existing businesses
or institutions where leftover paint could be placed into a simple box cage directly by the
public or by local government or retail staff. Drop-off points could be located at
community locations (e.g., solid waste transfer stations, fire stations, or community
centers). Processing does not typically occur at these collection points. Each of the
various types of drop-off points would have separate cost and convenience parameters
that would be negotiated with the sponsoring organization.
3-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
In addition, aggregation points likely will be needed to minimize transportation costs.
Aggregation points are locations (such as warehouses) where paint cans are reloaded into larger
trucks (such as semi trailers) for more efficient transportation to a processor. Dedicated
collection facilities also could serve as aggregation points to which paint is transported from
individual drop-off points for further transport to a processor. Aggregation points will be
covered in more detail in the next section, Transportation and Aggregation.
METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS
Creating a model for a nationally-coordinated leftover paint management infrastructure is
complicated due to the great variety in U.S. community demographics, development and
transportation patterns, and climate. Furthermore, careful consideration of economics,
convenience, and other factors is necessary for siting collection facilities. For planning-level
purposes some order-of-magnitude estimates of the number of collection points needed were
developed. Two methods were employed to examine the possible nature of a nationallycoordinated leftover paint collection system. These approaches are not recommendations about
what collection methods would be most effective or feasible; rather, they are a means of
independently estimating how many collection points would be required to collect leftover paint
using different approaches. Together, these approaches (described below) provide a reasonable
range of the number of collection points needed.
Approaches to Estimate Collection Points Needed

Minimal Service Level Approach – This approach estimates the number of collection
points (either at dedicated facilities or co-located points) for a nationally-coordinated
system based on the “service level” of existing paint collection programs. The service
level is defined as the number of collection points that exist relative to the size of the
population. In other words, if existing programs typically have one collection point per n
number of people, this approach calculates the number of collection points in a given area
based on that same ratio. This method provides a very simple, straightforward approach
based on existing program data. One limitation, however, is that existing collection
systems are generally considered inadequate to provide the throughput capacity or
customer convenience (even in communities where they exist) to collect the volumes of
leftover paint expected under a well-promoted and nationally-coordinated infrastructure.
This method, therefore, exemplifies a minimal national infrastructure that would result in
low levels of leftover paint collected and fewer opportunities for customers to manage
their paint.

Collection Point Capacity Approach – This approach incorporates assumptions about
how much paint that each collection point can accept (its “throughput”) to estimate the
number of collection points needed.. This method involves a greater number of
assumptions, and is therefore more sophisticated than the first approach. It considers
operating conditions as they may be expected to vary by population density, as well as
different paint collection levels per capita. It is important to note that model assumptions
made about collection points could be adjusted based on real world local demand and
conditions. This model provides more detailed average performance capacities in
different demographic areas.
3-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Geographic Types
Before estimating the number of collection points by the above methods, it is necessary to define
the geographic types by population density. Different geographic areas in the United States have
different infrastructure requirements. U.S. Census designates four specific geographic types
based on population density that can be used to estimate the number of collection points needed
Pre-existing Census designations8 were used to approximate the four geographic types as
displayed in Exhibit 4.
EXHIBIT 4: DATA SOURCE FOR GEOGRAPHIC TYPE DESIGNATIONS
GEOGRAPHIC TYPE
Super-Urban
DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHIC TYPE
Includes cities with a density of at least
10,000 people per square mile and a
minimum size of at least 500,000 people.
Cities that meet this classification include
New York City, San Francisco, Chicago,
Boston, and Philadelphia, but not their
surrounding suburbs.
DATA SOURCE
Census data for cities of New
York, San Francisco, Boston,
Philadelphia, and Chicago
Includes most other cities, including Los
Angeles, D.C., Detroit, Dallas, Houston, and
Atlanta.
Census data for all 361
Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs), excluding the above
five cities
Isolated Cities and
Towns
Includes population clusters with between
10,000 and 50,000 people.
Census data for all 573
Micropolitan Statistical Areas
Very Rural
Includes very small towns and remote,
sparsely-populated areas
Census data for all areas not
included in the above three
classifications.
Urban/Metro
Minimal Service-Level Approach
One of the simplest and most straight-forward means to estimate the number of collection points
that might be needed for leftover paint is to use service-level data from existing model paint
collection programs. For example, Exhibit 5 displays data from actual programs that provide
reasonable fits with the geographic types designated for this project.9 The programs and listed in
8
9
The designations used, metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, are statistical geographic areas defined by the federal
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), following a set of official standards published in the Federal Register. Each
metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area consists of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with
adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.
Please note that the Vancouver and Portland systems are very different - the Vancouver system is more distributed and the
Portland system is more centralized. As a result, service levels per collection point are very different. We proceed with this
variation, understanding that in reality not every super-urban community would choose a Vancouver-type system and not
every urban/metro community would choose a Portland-type system. Nevertheless, there are so few existing paint collection
programs from which to gather data that for planning-level purposes, these assumptions were considered reasonable.
3-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Exhibit 5 were chosen based on their successful and longstanding track record collecting leftover
paint, the availability of data, their relatively high collection quantities, and how well their size
and population density exemplified each geographic type (e.g., Super-Urban, Urban/Metro,
Isolated Cities). All data presented in this exhibit are from the Product Stewardship Institute’s
Collection White Paper.
EXHIBIT 5: PAINT COLLECTION PROGRAM
SERVICE LEVELS - MODEL PROGRAMS
GEOGRAPHIC TYPE
PEOPLE PER COLLECTION POINT
Super-Urban
100,000
Urban/Metro
350,00010
Isolated Cities
Very Rural
EXAMPLE PROGRAM AND DATA SOURCE
Vancouver, B.C.
Portland, OR
23,000
British Columbia (outside Vancouver
metro area)
N/A
N/A (serviced by mobile or one-day
events)
Exhibit 6 below estimates the number of collection points needed for all communities in the
United States that would fall within each geographic type. These calculations are derived by
dividing the total U.S. population for all communities in a given geographic type by the average
people per collection point11. Note that collection programs for Very Rural areas are not
considered explicitly in this report. Residents of rural areas could take leftover paint to the
nearest isolated city or metro area, or could be serviced by mobile events.
EXHIBIT 6: ESTIMATE OF COLLECTION POINTS NEEDED IN U.S.
TO MATCH MODEL PROGRAM SERVICE LEVELS
POPULATION
MINIMUM COLLECTION POINTS NEEDED IN U.S.
(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
292 million
2,090
GEOGRAPHIC
TYPE
TOTAL
10
11
The urban/metro service level of 350,000 people per collection point may be high since much of Portland’s HHW comes from
collection events. Other urban/metro communities service fewer people per collection point.
For example, for Super Urban, 14 million people divided by 100,000 people per site = 140 sites
3-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
This analysis indicates that approximately 2,090 collection points would be needed nationwide to
approximate the level of service currently offered by existing programs in Portland, Oregon, and
British Columbia, and Vancouver, Canada. A nationally promoted and coordinated leftover paint
collection infrastructure would be expected to collect more paint than is currently collected even
in these model programs. Therefore, this total is considered to be a low-end estimate of the total
number of collection points needed to provide a minimal level of service
Collection Point Capacity Approach
The second approach is based on the number of collection
sites that would be needed to manage the expected
quantity of paint generated, using assumptions about the
amount of paint that could be collected per site and the
population density in different geographic areas.
The first step in this collection-point capacity approach is
to estimate the quantity of paint to be handled at average
collection points in each of the geographic types. Based
on feedback from the Infrastructure Workgroup, it is
assumed that collection and transportation of leftover
paint will be accomplished using paint cages or a similar
transportable container. The photo to the right displays a
paint cage at the Portland, Oregon facility. The more
urban an area, the less space possible collection points are
likely to have, and hence the fewer number of containers
they would be able to keep on site. Accordingly, Exhibit
7 displays the assumptions regarding the number of cages
accommodated by collection points in each geographic
type. It is further assumed that each collection point in
super-urban and urban/metro areas will transport its paint
Shrink-Wrapped Platform of 5-gallon
Pails On Top of Paint Cage
to an aggregation point at least weekly. More frequent
collection may be necessary in urban or super-urban
areas, or if customer response is higher than expected. Isolated cities and towns, on the other
hand, may not need to transport their paint as frequently (it is assumed at least once every other
week).
EXHIBIT 7: ASSUMPTIONS ON PAINT THROUGHPUT
Assumed number of
cages or
transportable boxes
per collection point
per week
Average weekly onegallon cans serviced
per collection point
Assumed number of
times collected per
year
Number of onegallon cans serviced
per collection point
per year
Super-Urban
1-2
140 - 280
52
7,300 to 14,500
Urban/Metro
2-4
280 - 560
52
14,500 to 29,000
Isolated cities and
towns
2-8
280 - 1,120
26
7,300 to 29,000
Geographic Type
3-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
It is also assumed that each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area will need at least one
collection point. Most, of course, will have many more because the quantities of leftover paint
will require it. Since a micropolitan statistical area has at least 10,000 people by definition, this
requirement assures that each region of the country with a concentration of at least 10,000 people
will have a permanent collection point.
Finally, it is assumed (based on data from Portland Metro, Product Care and other programs) that
each cage can hold 140 cans of paint and that individual leftover paint cans are, on average, 40
percent full (Quinn, 2005).
Exhibit 8 estimates the number of collection points needed through a series of calculations that
starts with the leftover paint generation rates discussed earlier in Exhibit 1. For example, a Low
Rate of .06 gallons/person/year multiplied by 14 million people (Super-Urban) would result in
840,000 gallons of leftover paint generated per year in Super-Urban areas in the U.S. Dividing
that number by 40 percent, which is the average amount of paint leftover per can, yields 2.1
million one-gallon paint cans generated per year in this Super-Urban area. Dividing that number
by the number of one-gallon cans that can be processed per collection point in a Super-Urban
area (7,300 to 14,500 cans, from Exhibit 7), provides the estimated number of collection points
needed in the Super-Urban area, again assuming a low generate rate – 145 to 288 sites.
It is useful to consider that a nationally coordinated leftover paint management system will
proceed in stages, and that more paint will be collected as we increase the number of collection
sites (for added convenience) and increase the amount of paint collected per site (throughput).
The relationship between these two factors is complex. However, it is clear that some new sites
will not be needed if an existing site were well promoted and has capacity to handle larger
volumes. On the other hand, increased convenience through a new collection site might offset the
need for another existing facility to expand. The Infrastructure Workgroup decided that Very
Rural Areas will not be able to support permanent collection points. In addition, siting challenges
could limit the number of collection points in Super-Urban areas owing to existing development
3-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 8: ESTIMATED COLLECTION POINTS NEEDED BASED ON
THROUGHPUT CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS
PAINT COLLECTION RATE
Low
Medium
High
Extra High
LEFTOVER PAINT GENERATION RATES (gallons/person/year)
from Exhibit 1
Nationwide
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.23
POPULATION
Super Urban
14 million
Urban/Metro
228 million
Isolated City/Town
30 million
Very Rural
20 million
Total
292 million
ANNUAL LEFTOVER PAINT GENERATION (gallons)
= Leftover paint Generation Rate x Population
Super Urban
840,000
1,540,000
2,380,000
3,220,000
Urban/Metro
13,680,000
25,080,000
38,760,000
52,440,000
Isolated City/Town
1,800,000
3,300,000
5,100,000
6,900,000
Very Rural
1,200,000
2,200,000
3,400,000
4,600,000
Total
17,520,000
32,120,000
49,640,000
67,160,000
NUMBER OF LEFTOVER 1-GALLON PAINT CANS PER YEAR
= Leftover Paint Generation / 40 percent full average per can
Super Urban
2,100,000
3,850,000
5,950,000
8,050,000
Urban/Metro
34,200,000
62,700,000
96,900,000
131,100,000
Isolated City/Town
4,500,000
8,250,000
12,750,000
17,250,000
Very Rural
3,000,000
5,500,000
8,500,000
11,500,000
Total
43,800,000
80,300,000
124,100,000
167,900,000
NUMBER OF 1-GALLON PAINT CANS SERVICED PER COLLECTION POINT PER YEAR
From Exhibit 8
Super Urban
7,300 to 14,500
Urban/Metro
14,500 to 29,000
Isolated City/Town
7,300 to 29,000
Very Rural
Serviced by Collection Programs
NUMBER OF COLLECTION POINTS NEEDED
= Number of Leftover 1-Gallon Paint Cans Per Year /
Number of 1-Gallon Paint Cans Serviced per Collection Point
Super Urban
145 to 288
266 to 527
410 to 815
555 to 1,103
Urban/Metro
1,179 to 2,359
2,162 to 4,324
3,341 to 6,683
4,521 to 9,041
Isolated City/Town *
600
600
600 to 700
600 to 800
Total
1,924 to 3,247
3,028 to 5,451
4,351 to 8,198 5,676 to 10,944
* It is assumed that each Isolated City/Town will have at least one collection point.
As the above exhibit indicates, the method of analysis based on collection point capacity
assumptions estimates that the number of collection points needed could range from as low as
1,924 (if collection points can handle more cages and paint quantities are low) to as high as
10,944 (if collection points each handle fewer cages and paint quantities are extra high).
3-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
RESULTS COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
The two analytical methods used above produced different estimates of the number of facilities
needed. Conclusions from these analyses indicate that:

At least 2,090 collection points would be needed to provide a minimal level of service
comparable to existing paint collection programs in specified areas;

Assumptions about how much paint individual collection points could handle indicate
that, depending on the type and size of collection points used and amount of paint
generated, between 1,900 and 11,000 collection points could be needed. [Exhibit 8].
Based on these two findings, the following conclusions can be made:

At least 2,000 collection points will be needed initially. These collection points may be
able to handle a “low” level of paint generation and collection equivalent to 0.15 gallons
per household in each service area.

Increasing the number of collection points to 5,000 or more would provide substantially
increased convenience and likely enable increased collection quantities, up to 0.45
gallons per household (0.17 gallons per person) in each service area or even higher.

Maximum convenience and collection quantities would likely be achieved by offering
5,600 to 11,000 collection points. These collection points would serve not more than
30,000 residents per site (10,000 + households) and collect an average of up to 130
gallons (liquid measure) of paint weekly per site.
For comparison, note that currently there are over 1,500 sites in the U.S. that collect leftover
paint (Earth911, 2005). However, to provide an adequate base level of service to the entire
country would likely require many more sites as are currently offered.
One additional factor for consideration is that the number of fixed collection points needed may
be decreased if curbside collection of leftover paint emerges as a viable opportunity. Currently,
curbside collection of leftover paint is a very rare practice. However, it has the potential to offer
increased consumer convenience at reasonable cost if the service can be added to existing
curbside recycling – a practice that would require negotiation with recyclables haulers at the
local level. Curbside recycling of basic recyclables is currently provided to an estimated 56
percent of the nation’s households.12 Assuming conservatively that 10 percent of the nation’s
haulers could be persuaded to add paint to their recycling programs, then approximately five
percent of the nation’s households could be served by curbside paint collection. However, in the
long term the percentage could be much higher if haulers were offered an incentive to participate
equal to or greater than their costs of operating the service.
12
Source: BioCycle magazine and Northbridge Environmental, Westford, Massachusetts.
3-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
In addition, some level of collection will need to be provided for the 20 million U.S. residents
who live in the “very rural” geographic classification. In some cases, these residents may already
travel to cities (even distant cities) to purchase basic items and so the fixed collection points
discussed above may provide an adequate level of service for many residents. Alternately,
collection points could be provided in towns with only a few thousand residents. Such collection
points could be serviced infrequently (perhaps monthly) by the same aggregation system using
trucks operating in the nearest urban areas with more developed collection point networks. A
third option would be to offer periodic or event-type services to these rural residents.
Exhibit 9 presents population density across the U.S. This can also be translated to leftover paint
generation since it is a direct relationship. Exhibit 10 displays the existing HHW programs that
currently collect paint. Maps 3 through 10 are more detailed presentations by region of the
country.
3-9
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 9: POPULATION DENSITY
3-10
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 10: EXISTING HHW PROGRAMS
3-11
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 4
AGGREGATION AND TRANSPORTATION
The collection infrastructure described in the previous section relies on a number of collection
points, which accept leftover paint from the public and then store it in cardboard gaylord boxes,
paint cages, or other similar containers. The leftover paint must then be transported on a periodic
basis to a paint recycler. In most cases, the paint processor will not be located in the same city as
the collection point (there are currently fewer than 10 major paint recyclers in North America),
so long-haul trucking will be necessary.
Each collection point could, in theory, ship paint directly to the processor. However, the
economics of trucking improve with increased size of the trailer, called a “van” by the trucking
industry. A 53-foot van is generally the longest allowed trailer, is generally limited to 42,000
pounds of freight, and could therefore hold several thousand gallons of paint. However, most
collection points will not be able to store this many cans at any one time. Therefore, in most
cases a system of combining paint can boxes or cages from individual collection points at an
aggregation facility will be needed. Note that the aggregation concept is essentially the reverse
of typical distribution warehousing systems currently used by the retail industry.
AGGREGATION
The core activity that would take place at an aggregation facility is unloading pallets, cages, or
gaylord boxes of paint cans from a smaller truck and re-loading them onto a larger truck for
long-distance truck transport. Three possible models of aggregation points have been identified:

Stand-alone aggregation facility. At its most basic, a stand-alone aggregation
facility would need the capacity to store approximately three 53-foot box vans of
paint, have a loading dock and a forklift, an office, and at least two staff. The exact
size and location of each stand-alone aggregation facility would be determined by
local conditions, but a minimum size of 4,200 square feet of warehouse space to
accommodate three box vans of paint cans, space for maneuvering the forklift, and
the office is recommended. Aggregation facilities are likely best located in an
industrial or warehouse district near major cities in metropolitan areas.

Aggregation outsourced to shipping company. Some shipping companies offer
aggregation and other logistics services in addition to simple point-to-point trucking.
Such companies often store shipments in a box van at their warehouse until
accumulated quantities are large enough to warrant departure of that trailer to the
final destination. Where available, this option can offer the potential of cost savings
and the additional benefits of expertise and scalability provided by a company
specializing in shipping and logistics.

Aggregation at a collection point. Particularly in smaller communities, if
aggregation is necessary it may be able to take place at an existing collection point.
Combining aggregation and collection facilities may be particularly viable if the
4-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
collection point is a dedicated facility and not co-located at a community center or
retail store. In this model, paint collected at smaller (perhaps co-located) collection
points could be brought to a central, dedicated facility for aggregation and shipping to
a processor.
The total number and mix of aggregation facilities will necessarily be determined by local
economics and logistics. However, for the purposes of providing planning-level estimates of the
number of aggregation points needed, it is assumed that each metropolitan area in the U.S. will
need at least one stand-alone aggregation point, whereas smaller communities (“isolated cities”)
can operate without a stand-alone aggregation facility. Therefore, over 350 stand-alone
aggregation points throughout the country are needed, one for each Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA).
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation to the Aggregation Points
A primary reason for aggregation points is to accommodate space constraints and save costs at
collection points, most of which can neither store thousands of cans of paint nor accommodate a
53-foot box van. Accordingly, more frequent collection of smaller quantities is needed to
transport leftover paint from collection points to aggregation facilities. Two primary methods
identified include:

“Milk-run” logistics. Under this model, a truck makes one or several stops to pick
up leftover paint along a fixed route. This “milk run” type system includes subsequent
transport to an aggregation point. One commonly used delivery truck is a 24-foot box
van, which can accommodate 12 pallets and 26,000 pounds. Costs for this type of
system vary, but are generally priced either by the stop or by the hour, and are
estimated to be a significant fraction of the total cost of a collection and transportation
system for leftover paint.
Collection points that can store several thousand cans of paint needed to fill a longhaul box van will not require aggregation prior to transport to a processing facility
which will reduce costs. Another possible cost saving measure includes outsourcing
aggregation to a shipping and logistics company.

Back-haul using existing delivery trucks. In this model, leftover paint is collected
at the same time that other products are being delivered. This option is often
associated with retail stores, which can serve as collection points, as is the case with
rechargeable batteries, toner cartridges, and many other products. Under this model,
retail outlets receive deliveries of new products before loading used products into the
same delivery trucks to be “backhauled” to a consolidation point. This model could
also involve delivery of new products to a retailer and collection of leftover paint at
municipal or private facilities that are not associated with the retail outlet. The paint
could still be backhauled to a consolidation point along the “reverse distribution”
route. In relation to paint, there is still concern about whether retail collection is
feasible or desirable.
4-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Few paint retailers or distributors operate or express interest in a back-haul system, so
there is little precedent or experience with this type of system. However, the Product
Stewardship Institute conducted a pilot project for several years with Benjamin
Moore that demonstrated the feasibility of a back-haul arrangement whereby
Benjamin Moore collected their own leftover latex paint was from municipal depots
and brought back to the company’s manufacturing plant.13 In another pilot project,
the Product Stewardship Institute showed the feasibility of collecting computers at
Staples retail outlets and commercial customers in five New England States.14 In that
pilot, Staples trucks that delivered new office products to the retail stores and
businesses also collected gaylord boxes of computers, and then transported them to
the company’s distribution locations, where they were consolidated and transported to
a recycling company. Based on these data, the company is now collecting computers
on a permanent basis in retail stores in Washington State
In the handful of metropolitan areas that have a paint re-processing facility, that facility would
itself serve as the aggregation facility and no long-haul trucking would be needed.
Transportation to Processing Facilities
Shipping from the aggregation points will be least costly in 53-foot box vans. Long-haul
trucking costs are developed in Section 7, with variations depending on distance and area of the
country.
Costs for the aggregation and transportation described in this section are developed further in
Section 7.
13
14
Product Stewardship Institute, 2004. Paint Product Stewardship: A Background Report for the National Dialogue on Paint
Product Stewardship
The Collection and Recycling of Used Computers Using a Reverse Distribution System, a Pilot Project with Staples, Inc., Final
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PSI, June 2005
4-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 5
PROCESSING CAPACITY NEEDED
Increasing the quantities of leftover paint collected through a nationally-coordinated
infrastructure may also require additional processing capacity, above what already exists, where
paint is sorted, screened, and recycled into new paint. To estimate existing processing capacity
and understand how and where additional processing capacity may be needed, this study:

Conducted a survey of existing paint recycling facilities as detailed below.
Additional notes from each interview can be found in Appendix B.
Processor
Contact
Kelly Moore
Walter LeClerc
California
Eco Peinture
George Portelance
Quebec
Amazon Environmental
Amazon Environmental
California
Fred Bauer
Amazon Environmental

State or Province
Minnesota
Ohio
Metro
Jim Quinn
Oregon
Product Care
Mark Kurschner
British Columbia
Visions Recycling
Jerry Noel
California
Hotz Environmental
Pamela McAuley
Ontario
Used results of these interviews, as well as paint collection estimates developed
above, to estimate how many and where new facilities may be needed.
PROCESSOR SURVEY
Of the nine recycled paint processing facilities contacted, seven participants were interviewed
(one interview represented three facilities) regarding plant operations. Participants walked the
interviewer through their process. At times, participants refrained from answering questions
regarding customers, cost, and processing information that they deemed sensitive competitive
data. Formal questions fell under three categories:

Collection details
-
Do collection points pre-process?
Do you use aggregation points?
Distance from collection to aggregation
Population density benchmarks for collection points
5-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative

Transportation costs
-

From collection to aggregation to processing
Process details
-
Minimum amount of paint needed as feedstock
Maximum capacity
Optimum throughput
Offer reuse opportunities
Survey Key Findings
One of the key findings of the survey is that no two operations are alike. Each had any number of
the following variables in the process:

Funding - some facilities were government funded and others private;

Collection methods – these range from depots at HHW sites to consumer drop-off
programs at retail paint locations;

Method and location for sorting and bulking paint;

Final recycled paint product – these range from two to 300 colors;

End-user – these included cement kiln, “virgin” retail paint vendor, overseas market, and
municipality;

Standard for producing quality paint; and

Paint distribution model.
Additional variables exist which make it difficult to compare processing information. However,
the majority of processors agreed on the following series of findings:

Every processor had additional capacity - Using the measurement unit of liquid gallon
capacity (versus partial gallon can capacity), processors can convert roughly 1 - 6 million
gallons of recycled paint per facility per year.

Processors determine location based on a number of factors, including existing
HHW or transfer stations, supplier locations, end-customer locations, existing
production facilities - Although population density analysis is not an explicit
consideration, with the exception of one processor who built a facility next to a large
supplier, major urban areas are implicit in most location considerations.

Transportation costs are the second consideration in choosing processor locations According to the survey, transportation costs varied considerably among participants,
depending on collection process, government contracts, and other variables. Although
most expressed that transportation costs were a nominal amount of their cost structure,
5-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
transportation costs are uniformly considered in deciding the location of processing
facilities. The majority of participants agreed that a maximum range of 500 to 1,000
miles one way determined the cost-benefit transportation threshold, though many
reported greater distances.
When asked hypothetically about building additional capacity, the following were the three
primary considerations:

Population density (supply of leftover paint)

Transportation costs (distance for supply to travel)

End-customer (distance for the final product to travel)
With the exception of one processor, demand for the final product (recycled paint either at
retail, commercial or export markets) is the barrier to processing additional leftover paint
(e.g., the supply). Although demand-driven production was beyond the scope of the original
survey, participants almost uniformly agreed that there was not enough demand for recycled
paint. Therefore, processors limit supply and thus have remaining capacity for production.
Those interviewed uniformly agreed that end-customers purchase recycled paint because it costs
less than comparable virgin paint, and do not base this decision on altruistic environmental
reasons. According to those interviewed, key customers for recycled paint products are:

Governments and municipalities (schools, prisons, other public facilities)

Overseas markets

Commercial contractors (apartment building and complex exteriors)

Low-income urban and rural households (i.e., farmer painting barn exterior, etc.)
Many processors were eager to discuss recent quality improvements across the industry and the
need for industry-wide quality standards among recycled paint producers. The completion of the
Green Seal standard for recycled latex paint will go a long way to addressing these concerns.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND NEW FACILITIES NEEDED
Exhibit 11 displays basic results from an analysis of the capacity for recycled paint processing in
the United States. This analysis is only as complete as the industry information provided via
surveys and existing research. Capacity and collection assumptions are measured in liquid
gallons (versus partial gallon cans). The analysis did not include projected increased capacity
from any processor, but assumed that capacity remained constant at its existing amount. Also,
the analysis did not consider any increased quantities of leftover paint from Canada. However,
Canadian processing capacity was included. Accordingly, if existing processing capacity in
southeastern Canada (e.g., Quebec) is filled with increased supply from Canada, additional
processing facilities may be needed to serve the northeast U.S.
5-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Finally, it was assumed that paint swaps located at collection facilities could reduced the quantity
of paint flowing to processors by 20 percent as compared to the quantities estimated to be
collected. Therefore, the paint to be processed presented in Exhibit 11 assumes a 20 percent
reduction in the quantity of leftover paint generated for paint reuse. It also assumes a mediumlevel scenario of 0.11 liquid gallons collected per person (from Exhibit 2)
EXHIBIT 11: PAINT PROCESSING CAPACITY
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL NEEDS
REGION
Northwest
West
Midwest
South
Southeast
East
Northeast
TOTAL
Existing Capacity
(annual gallons)
Paint to be Processed
(0.11 gallons per person, medium
scenario, less 20% reuse)
Additional
Capacity Needed
1,600,000
9,500,000
9,000,000
0
0
0
3,000,000
23,100,000
1,100,000
4,500,000
5,600,000
3,300,000
5,100,000
3,800,000
2,300,000
25,700,000
0
0
0
3,300,000
5,100,000
3,800,000
0
12,200,000
Existing paint capacity presented in Exhibit 11 includes the following facilities and quantities:

Northwest – 600,000 gallons per year from Portland Metro and 1 million gallons per year
from Product Care in British Columbia

West – 3 million gallons per year from Amazon Environmental in California, 4 million
gallons per year from Visions Recycling in California, and 2.5 million gallons per year
from Kelly Moore in California.

Midwest – 3 million gallons per year from Amazon Environmental in Minnesota and 6
million gallons per year from Amazon Environmental in Ohio.

Northeast – 1 million gallons from Hotz Environmental in Ontario, Canada and 2 million
gallons per year from Eco Peinture in Quebec, Canada.
Latex and Oil-Based Collection Proportions
In Exhibit 11, the “paint to be processed” includes both latex and oil-based paints, and assumes a
ratio of 80 percent latex to 20 percent oil-based, which is the estimated ratio of new paint sales.
However, based on data from the Northwest Product Stewardship Council,15 the current
percentage of oil-based leftover paint being collected is between 35 percent and 40 percent.
15
Personal communication, Dave Nightingale, August 21, 2006, and Paint Age Study Performed by NW Product Stewardship
Council - Paint Advisory Group, presented in Chicago, IL, September 20-21, 2004.
5-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Therefore, the 80 to 20 split is a conservative planning number since it is not expected to reach
this capacity until some time in the future.
As part of earlier research efforts of the PPSI process, a paint age study was performed and the
results were presented at the Chicago stakeholders’ meeting in September 2004. The study
found that the percentage of oil-based paints cans collected in three communities was 34.3, 39.3,
and 44.3 percent. Interestingly, the community that had most recently established a permanent
collection program had the lowest percentage of oil-based paint. In calculating the age of paint
collected from these three communities and two others (328 cans total), it was found that 50
percent of the paint cans were less than seven years old and 90 percent of the paint cans were
less than 14 years old.
Since industry representatives indicated that, in the last 14 years, there were less than 30 percent
oil-based architectural paints sold in the market, it is clear that, with 34 to 44 percent coming
back, paint consumers are ending up with a larger proportion of leftover oil-based paint than
paint sales would indicate. This implies that there is a difference between the proportion of latex
to oil-based paint sold into the market and the proportion of latex to oil-based paint available for
collection. This leads to an expectation that there is, and will continue to be, a
disproportionately large quantity of oil-based paint requiring collection than what new paint sales
would indicate for some years in the future.
Section 6 of this report presents a conceptual design of a paint processing facility. This facility
was designed to process 600,000 gallons of useable latex paint annually. The facility throughput
of one million gallons is based on a single eight-hour shift. Additional paint can be processed by
running extended hours or a second eight-hour shift.
Facility representatives interviewed for this study indicated that unusable latex paint comprises
up to 25 percent of leftover latex paint; therefore, the facility will likely accept 800,000 gallon of
latex paint of which 200,000 is unusable and will require disposal (25 percent of 800,000 gallons
is 200,000 gallons). A further assumption is that the quantity of oil-based paint collected will, in
time, match the proportion of oil-based paint sold, which is 20 percent. Therefore, the total
quantity of paint accepted by the processing facility is one million gallons (latex-both useable
and unusable- plus oil-based paint). Since the facility has been designed with an 80:20 percent
latex to oil ratio, the model could be overestimating the amount of paint to be collected. It is
worth mentioning that it is relatively easy to manage oil-based paint by hiring a contractor to
haul drums of paint for fuel blending. The facility design presented in Section 6 of this report can
accept and process oil-based paint using a separate flammables bulking room with ventilation to
remove potentially harmful vapors. Overestimating the capacity needed for the latex paint
results in planning estimates are conservative compared to what is expected in the near term.
Processor Analysis Overview and Conclusions
Assuming the medium-level scenario of 0.11 liquid gallons collected per person (from Exhibit
2), the capacity analysis presented in Exhibit 11 indicates major capacity gaps exist in the South,
the Southeast and the East. Using a minimum facility design capacity of one million gallons per
year (as explained above and presented in Section 6 of this report) and a maximum facility
capacity of six million gallons per year (the highest capacity of facilities interviewed), the
5-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
number of processing facilities that may be needed under the four collection scenarios is
presented in Exhibit 12. See Appendix B for more details on this analysis.
If the minimum facility design with annual throughput of one million gallons is based on the
proportion of leftover latex paint matching paint sales (80 percent), it is probably overestimating
the proportion of latex likely to be received and underestimating the proportion of oil-based paint
in the short term. In actual implementation of a nationally-coordinated leftover paint system, it
is easier and much less labor intensive to simply bulk oil-based paint for use as an alternate
industrial fuel.
EXHIBIT 12: ESTIMATED NEW PROCESSING FACILITIES NEEDED, BY REGION
Level of Collection Assumed
Low
(0.06 gals per
person)
Medium
(0.11 gals per
person)
High
(0.17 gals per
person)
Extra High
(0.23 gals per
person)
Northwest
0
0
0-1
0-1
West
0
0
0
0
Midwest
0
0
0
1-3
South
1-2
1-4
1-6
2-7
Southeast
1-3
1-6
2-8
2-11
East
1-3
1-4
1-6
2-8
0
0
0-1
1-2
REGION
Northeast
TOTAL
3-8
3 - 14
4 - 22
* Paint quantities presented in this exhibit include both latex and oil-based paint.
8 - 32
This would also mean that the need for additional processing capacity of the nationallycoordinated system may be less or actually need to be developed at a later time. In this way
using the assumption that 80 percent of leftover paint is latex provides a larger need for
processing capacity and future facilities than using a smaller percentage assumption for the
proportion of leftover latex paint. If the actual level of leftover latex paint collected was in the
55 to 65 percent range, as indicated by the paint age study, the infrastructure needs would be
proportionally smaller for management. This is because it is thought that the latex recycling
process is the limiting throughput consideration, and that the capacity for bulking oil-based
paints can be accommodated with the existing flammables bulking area assuming the ranges
anticipated with either scenario.
Exhibit 13 maps the existing nine paint processing facilities described above with an associated
buffer of 500 miles. All counties within a 500-mile radius of an existing paint processing facility
are colored and each county was assigned to a single processing facility even though another
facility may also have been within its 500-mile radius. An additional facility operated by Hotz
Environmental in Mexico was also mapped.
5-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 13: EXISTING PAINT PROCESSING FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED 500 MILE BUFFER
5-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 6
PROCESSING FACILITY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The first step in designing a paint processing facility is estimating its capacity. Factors that
affect the quantity of paint that can be delivered to a processing facility include reuse programs
at collection sites, the proportion of latex and oil-based paints delivered, and the quantity of
unusable paint that requires disposal.
In the Background Report (2004) prepared for the PPSI, the Product Stewardship Institute
reported that HHW programs in Massachusetts that incorporate paint swaps manage about 20
percent of their paint through the swaps. Processors reported a range of recycling rates for the
leftover paint they process: Amazon Environmental reported 45 percent, while Metro (Portland
OR) reported 80 percent. Based on that data, PSI estimated that 65 percent of leftover latex paint
sent to processors can be recycled into new paint (Product Stewardship Institute, 2004). The rest
must be downcycled into other, non-paint products such as cement additives, or disposed.
Based on the information above, the Infrastructure Workgroup agreed that the national system
should use the following hierarchy when managing leftover latex paint: reuse, recycle,
downcycle, disposal. In consultation with the consultant team, the Workgroup agreed to use the
following goals for management of leftover latex paint:

20 percent of paint is reused through paint swaps

65 percent is recycled into new paint (whether consolidated or reprocessed)

8 percent is downcycled into a cement additive

7 percent is disposed
As the collection system for leftover paint matures, these percentages are expected to be
reached over time. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that all collected leftover
paint would be aggregated and transported to processing facilities. There was insufficient
data to confidently estimate the proportion of paint that would be diverted to reuse
programs or how reuse programs would affect the proportion of usable latex paint.
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
The conceptual layout of the facility design is shown in Exhibit 14. The design is based on a
facility which processes approximately 50,000 gallons of usable latex paint per month, or 0.6
million gallons of paint annually. This does not include the quantity of unusable paint or the
proportion of oil-based paint that will be bulked for use as a fuel. The facility operations could
be expanded to accommodate an increased capacity by adding a second shift or additional tanks
and canning equipment, or both. Facility operations are based on a five-day work week, with an
8-hour shift.
6-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Paint Sorting and Processing
Paint that is accepted at collection events or at collection points without storage capacity will
likely need to be collected through either scheduled pick-ups or milk runs. The containerized
paint arrives at the facility in gaylord boxes and is offloaded at a receiving loading dock area.
The gaylord boxes are then taken by forklift to an incoming paint storage area where they will
eventually be pulled for processing.
EXHIBIT 14: DIAGRAM OF PAINT PROCESSING FLOW CHART
Leftover Paint
Useable Latex
Paint
Un-useable
Paint and
Oil-based Paint
Processed
Non-Paint Recycling
Energy Recovery or
Disposal
Sorted by Color
and Blended
Filtered
Packaged
Shipped to
Retail facility
Empty Cans
Recycled
Unusable latex paint can be down-cycled and used as feedstock for other products. For the
model presented in this report, it is assumed that unusable latex paint is handled as a solid waste
and disposed of in a municipal landfill. In some states, unusable latex paint will be managed as a
6-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
hazardous waste. Oil based paints will be bulked in an area designated by the building code as
an H occupancy, and the bulked oil based paint will be sent to a fuel market.
Gaylord boxes are transported by forklift from the incoming paint storage area to the processing
line. The first sort would eliminate solvent and oil based paints and containers with unreadable
labels. Flammable product would be transported in bins to the flammable product containment
room for consolidation. Latex paint cans are individually loaded onto the corresponding
conveyer belt that transports the paint up to the mechanical opener. The approximate grade of the
conveyer is at a 4:1 ratio, which prevents the cans from tipping over while traveling up the
platform.
The second sort would eliminate spoiled paint or paint that is visually contaminated before
sorting by color and draining. Once the can is opened, it is inspected for content and quality.
Paint determined to be useable is passed on to the conveyer sorting line while non-useable paint
is emptied into a disposal drum or, if solid, placed in a bin for disposal.
Oil-based paint is consolidated and shipped to alternative markets to be used as a fuel source.
Employees managing oil-based paint require additional protective equipment such as respirators
and tyvek coveralls. The flammables bulking room will have area and spot ventilation to remove
potentially harmful vapors from workers breathing zone and avoid accumulation of flammable
vapors in concentrations that could ignite or explode. Additionally, the flammables bulking
room will be explosion-proof, which means explosion-proof lighting, hazardous condition
electrical fittings, fire walls, etc.. Health and safety training and a medical monitoring program
will also be required for all employees working in the flammables bulking room.
The sorting line is a conveyer system with manned designated “color stations.” Typically, paint
is collected in seven standard colors: white, green, red, blue, grey, brown and yellow. As the
paint travels around the conveyer, specific colors are pulled from the line at designated “color
stations.” Additional colors stations can be developed depending on the colors of incoming
paint.
It is assumed that seven employees will be required at each sorting line to sort the paint into
seven designated “color stations”. Paint colors will come in to the facility at very different rates,
while one station is very busy another may be idle; therefore, sorters will work according to the
incoming flow of paint. Two sorting lines will require 14 employees total to sort paint. The
sorting line employees work in an elevated room that is approximately 3.5 feet off the ground.
Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16 present an above view and side view, respectively, of the sorting
operation.
Consolidating
The acceptable containers are sorted by color and drained by gravity into 300-gallon plastic totes
that are moved by forklift to the processing area when filled. The tanks and bins are located in
areas that provide easy access for forklifts to maneuver; they are moved and replaced as they
become full.
6-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Reprocessing Option
The design presented in this report is for a paint consolidation facility but can be converted to a
reprocessing facility where recycled paint is mixed with virgin paint.16 Adjustments necessary
for a reprocessing facility would include the amount of warehouse space to store raw materials
and minor equipment modifications. The layout would remain similar.
Processing
This area would have three 1,000-gallon and one 500-gallon tanks with dedicated high-speed
dispersers equipped with circulation type blades, two-inch air pumps to in-line cartridge filters,
and canning line.
Paint Filtering and Packaging
As the storage tanks become full they are moved to a paint filtration and packaging area.
Packaging of the paint will take place after onsite quality control testing has been conducted.
Quality control testing will be conducted for color, thickness and chemical composition. The full
tanks are situated over a paint packaging conveyer line, which is equipped with hose
attachments, filtration systems and pumps. The paint is drained from the tank through a hose into
a filtration system, which is equipped with a screen. The paint is pumped into empty one to fivegallon containers that are situated on the conveyer belt and below the tank. The full containers
are then moved down the conveyer line where they are sealed boxed and palletized for shipping
to distribution warehouses or retail outlets.
The facility design is based on a 0.6 million gallons a year operation with three paint filtering
and packaging lines. It is not required that these lines be dedicated to a specific color. In the
event of a change in color the hoses, filtration system and pumps will be flushed clean prior to
the addition of a new color.
The wastewater collected from the hose, filtration, and pumping equipment from latex paint
packaging will be captured and sent to a wastewater treatment facility. An onsite water reuse
system is a possibility. A reuse system would incorporate settling tanks for solids and filtration.
Handling and treatment procedures of wastewater from these operations will be local, state or
territory specific. Prior to operations, a detailed consultation of regulations and permitting
requirements should be reviewed and followed, particularly those for the particular municipality,
state, or territory.
16
“Consolidated Paints” are defined as paints that contain a minimum of 95 percent by volume post-consumer paint with a
maximum of 5 percent by volume secondary industrial materials or virgin materials. “Reprocessed Paints” are defined as
paints that contain a minimum of 50 percent by volume post-consumer paint, with a maximum of 50 percent by volume
secondary industrial materials or virgin materials
6-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Can Crushing
A large number of empty metal and some plastic paint containers will need to be collected,
crushed, and sent for recycling. It is expected that most of the paint arriving at a paint processing
facility will be containerized in one-gallon metal cans.
Empty metal cans are collected from the paint sorting line and moved to an area designated for
crushing. Cans are crushed typically using a mechanical crusher. Empty steel cans from both the
latex and oil-based paint operations can be collected, mixed together and recycled as scrap metal.
Discussions with paint processing facility operators recommended that cans not be baled, due to
various difficulties with the process. Crushed cans can be collected loosely in 40-yard roll-off
containers that are located in loading dock area. When the roll-off containers are full, a recycling
company should be contacted to arrange for pickup.
Paint cans with solidified paint will be sent for landfill disposal, and plastic paint containers will
be recycled if a local program is available; otherwise, plastic containers will be disposed.
Exhibits 15, 16, and 17 presents a paint processing facility conceptual design.
6-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 15: OVERVIEW OF PAINT SORTING LINE
6-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 16: SIDE VIEW OF PAINT SORTING LINE
6-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 17: PAINT PROCESSING FACILITY LAYOUT
6-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 7
PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION
The previous sections of this report have discussed several aspects of a system to collect and
transform leftover paint into a new marketable product. This section analyzes costs of each step
of the process to support three primary goals:
1. Make recommendations about methods of collection, aggregation, or transportation that
can help minimize costs; and
2. Provide estimates of a likely range of system-wide costs for a nationally-coordinated
leftover paint management infrastructure.
3. Estimate costs to construct and operate a paint processing facility.
In the discussion and analyses that follow, costs for collection, aggregation, and transportation
are expressed in terms of dollars per gallon. Since the size and scale of the collection
infrastructure will vary widely according to local conditions, expressing costs on a per-gallon
basis allows for straight-forward scaling of costs for various sized facilities and geographies. In
addition, expressing costs on a per-gallon basis enables clear comparisons of costs among
collection, aggregation, transportation, and processing steps.
The method for determining costs of collection, aggregation, and transportation involved
conducting a literature review and interviewing numerous vendors (such as trucking companies),
program managers (such as household hazardous waste or curbside paint collection managers),
and a paint industry consultant for a realistic facility layout and industry standard equipment
types, quantities, and costs. In general, cost estimates for individual aspects of each stage were
obtained and combined to determine costs per gallon for that stage. For example, operating an
aggregation facility involves renting a warehouse space, hiring staff, and buying and operating
forklifts and other equipment. Best estimates were sought for each of these components, which
were combined to produce an overall cost-per-gallon estimate for leftover paint aggregation.
Further details (and assumptions) will be explained in each section below.
COLLECTION
As discussed in Section 3, the three primary possibilities for leftover paint collection from
metropolitan areas and isolated cities include dedicated facilities, co-located drop-off points, and
curbside collection. Leftover paint collection from rural areas will consist of mobile collection
events.
Collection from Metropolitan Areas and Isolated Cities
Dedicated Facilities-A distinguishing feature of a dedicated facility is that one of its primary goals (unlike co-located
drop-off points) is to accept leftover paint from the public. Existing HHW facilities are
7-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
examples of such dedicated facilities. However, dedicated facilities could also be devoted
exclusively to paint.
Dedicated facilities are often staffed facilities where consumers drive in and unload paint,
perhaps with the assistance of the staff. Dedicated facilities have a covered area or building in
which to store collected paint and package cans into larger shipping containers. If the facility
has capacity to store 24 pallets of paint in a covered location with a loading dock, it may be able
to ship paint directly to a recycler, and possibly even serve as an aggregation point for other,
smaller collection facilities. Alternately, a milk-run transportation network may be needed to
transport leftover paint to an aggregation facility.
At some existing facilities, staff open the paint cans and consolidate the paint into 55-gallon
drums. However, paint recyclers strongly prefer that paint be left in original cans so that they
can maintain control over quality and color of their feedstock. Accordingly, recommendations
and cost estimates for dedicated facilities call for staff to simply package paint cans into gaylord
boxes or cages.
To estimate costs for dedicated facilities, data from twenty existing HHW programs throughout
the country were analyzed. Although dedicated facilities for paint need not also collect HHW,
the breadth of cost data available for HHW facilities and the similarity in logistics made them a
strong basis for estimating costs of dedicated facilities. Data for these HHW facilities were
collected in 2005 by Cascadia Consulting Group as part of its study for the Metro Solid Waste
and Recycling Department, entitled Comparison of Household Hazardous Waste Programs, but
analyzed in greater detail for this study.
The overall median total cost of operating the 20 HHW sites as reported in Comparison of
Household Hazardous Waste Programs was $0.67 per pound. Based on the analysis of these
data, the cost of handling paint at a dedicated facility was estimated to be approximately $0.22
per pound including all operating and administrative costs, and most expected amortized capital
costs. The $0.22 per pound cost figure results from the deduction of the following:

Promotion, transport, and disposal costs (which totaled an estimated $0.35 per pound but
do not apply to this part of the system); and

Bulking paint in drums (estimated at $0.10 per pound 17) since no paint processing will be
occurring until the paint reaches the recycler.
These adjustments result in a median cost of $0.22 per pound for the programs analyzed;
however, average actual costs could be as low as $0.13 per pound or as high as $0.40 per pound
given the variability in costs reported by the programs studied and economies of scale, which
would tend to decrease per-pound and per-gallon costs with increased throughput. In addition,
purchase of new capital assets may require additional costs, as the programs surveyed generally
either are paying debt service on properties acquired many years ago or are renting. Purchase of
17
Jim Talbot of the City of Seattle estimated consolidation costs to be $0.08 per pound and Jen Holliday of Chittenden Solid
Waste District in Vermont estimated consolidation costs to be $0.13 per pound.
7-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
real estate at current market rates (particularly in large urban areas) could require amortized
capital costs at rates beyond those reported by companies and governments included in the 2005
Comparison of Household Hazardous Waste Programs study and therefore increase the $0.22
per pound estimate. However, capital costs are not the major source of costs for collection and
variations are not expected to have a major impact on the system-wide averages estimated here.
Assuming that the average paint can brought by a consumer is 40 percent full,18 that each liquid
gallon of paint (average of latex and oil-based) weighs 10 pounds,19 and that each empty paint
can weighs 0.5 pounds,20 the best estimate of $0.22 per pound equates to an estimate of $0.99 per
gallon can of paint or $2.48 per liquid gallon handled. Using these same calculations, but starting
with either a lower or higher cost per pound, results in a low estimate of $0.59 per gallon and a
high estimate of $1.80 per gallon.
Exhibit 18 summarizes the estimates of the costs of handling paint at dedicated facilities.
EXHIBIT 18: ESTIMATES OF PER-UNIT COSTS OF PAINT COLLECTION AT
DEDICATED FACILITIES
METRIC
BEST ESTIMATE
Per Pound
$0.22
Per Liquid Gallon
$2.48
Per Gallon Can (40% full)
$0.99
Co-located Drop-off Points-As described in Section 3, co-located facilities could be sited at various existing businesses or
institutions. Drop-off points could consist of a simple cage into which users can set their leftover
paint cans or could accept paint at a staffed counter as a service to the community. Currently,
few examples of co-located drop-off points for paint exist in North America. One of the best
examples is the network of paint drop-off points operated by Product Care in British Columbia
that are co-located with bottle recycling centers. According to Product Care’s 2004 annual
report and 2005 audited financial statements,21 annual operating costs were $4.13 million
(Canadian dollars equal to $3.7 million USD) to collect paint cans with a combined capacity of
6.1 million liters at 106 depots.22 According to the president of Product Care, collection costs
are approximately 25 percent of these costs, or $1.03 million (Mark Kurschner, personal
communication July 28, 2006). Assuming an exchange rate of $0.88 US dollar per Canadian
dollar and 3.78 liters per gallon, these figures translate into $0.56 per gallon can and $8,500 per
collection depot.
18
Collectors interviewed reported averages of 33, 40, and 45 percent. 40 percent was used as a reasonable average
As reported by Jim Talbot of the City of Seattle
20 As reported by Jim Talbot of the City of Seattle
21 Available at www.productcare.org
22 This figure includes annual amortized capital costs (including machinery, tubskids and cages, and trailers) with a current value
(as of 2005) of $756,171 (Canadian).
19
7-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Exhibit 19 displays cost estimates for co-located drop-off points based on the Product Care
model; please note that these costs do not include any sorting or transportation, nor any program
administration or staff time necessary to negotiate and maintain relationships with the facilities
that would host the leftover paint collection; accordingly, actual costs would likely be higher.
EXHIBIT 19: ESTIMATES OF PER-UNIT COSTS OF PAINT COLLECTION
AT CO-LOCATED DROP-OFF POINTS
METRIC
BEST ESTIMATE
Per Pound
$0.12
Per Liquid Gallon
$1.40
Per Gallon Can (40% full)
$0.56
One additional option that may offer significant promise is collecting leftover paint at existing
paint retailers. Some retailers may be interested in collecting leftover paint as a service to the
community and to increase their customer base. Furthermore, retailers are well-distributed
throughout the country and could provide a comprehensive collection infrastructure. In Quebec,
the leftover paint collection system relies on retail chains to provide collection points for a
substantial proportion of the total leftover paint in the Province. As described in Section 3,
12,000 existing paint retailers control an estimated 87 percent of the current virgin paint market.
Retail collection points also have the potential to offer significant cost savings over other
methods. One area for cost savings would be the benefit of using pre-existing facilities that are
already familiar to consumers and so would require less capital investment and less promotion.
An equal, if not greater opportunity, however, is the possibility to implement back-haul
transportation to existing distribution centers, particularly for larger stores and chains with highly
centralized distribution. As mentioned earlier, reverse distribution logistics do not require that
retailers collect the paint, but that they play a role in the overall leftover paint collection system.
This option is discussed in more detail below under “Transportation and Aggregation.”
Curbside Collection-Curbside collection of leftover paint is currently a rare practice but one that has the potential to
offer maximum consumer convenience at reasonable cost if combined with existing curbside
recycling collection. Operating curbside recycling at reasonable cost relies on high participation
by households that are spaced at urban densities – if households that participate are widely
spaced, the cost per household and per ton of material escalates rapidly.
A dedicated curbside service for leftover paint is not likely to be cost competitive due to the
relative infrequent generation of leftover paint (and therefore infrequent participation) by
households. However, collecting paint along with other curbside recyclables offers the potential
of great convenience at reasonable costs. Curbside recycling programs generally operate at
$0.05 to $0.0723 per pound. However, adding leftover paint required special handling, as it
23
See, for example, the following sources. Philipp, Kelly “The Economics of Collecting Recyclables” Resource Recycling 1999
(November): 22-26. Eureka Recycling “Downstream of Single Stream” Resource Recycling 2002 (November): 24-28. EPA
7-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
cannot be simply added in with other curbside recyclables. One existing program in Marion
County, Oregon uses a custom-built box added to the underside of the truck, at a cost of
approximately $2,000 per truck. A program in Alameda County, California simply places paint
cans in the cab of the truck.
Curbside collection of used motor oil has a longer and more extensive history than curbside
collection of leftover paint. Motor oil curbside collection is similar in operation to what has been
demonstrated for leftover paint. Therefore, much of the experience of curbside used oil
collection systems can be used as a proxy for evaluating potential leftover paint as an add-on to
existing curbside recycling systems. Existing information about the cost of curbside motor oil
were used to estimate the costs of collecting leftover paint. Key findings include:

Operating costs are estimated at $24 per truck per service day. According to a study
in Sacramento County, California, four percent of a driver’s time on regular curbside
recycling routes was devoted to collecting used motor oil.24 Assuming a loaded cost of
$75 per hour for truck and driver and an eight-hour workday, this equates to $24 per
service day per truck.

Capital costs are estimated at $5 per truck per service day. Capital improvements to
the truck, estimated at $2,000 per truck, would amount to approximately $133 per year
assuming a 15-year lifespan. Assuming bi-weekly collection and 26 service days per
year implies a capital cost of approximately $5 per service day. Therefore, costs total an
estimated $29 per service day per truck.

These costs amount to an estimate of $0.95 per household per year. If each truck
serves 800 households in the day’s route,25 these costs amount to $0.95 per household per
year ($29 per day multiplied by 26 days per year divided by 800 households).
Assuming that curbside collection of paint would have similar costs, and that curbside collection
would generate “high” collection quantities of 0.45 gallons of leftover paint per household per
year due to increased convenience, $0.95 per household per year equates to approximately $2.10
per gallon for curbside collection. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty around this
estimate due to the assumptions made above.
24
25
“Multifamily Recycling: A National Study” EPA530-R-01-018. Stevens, Barbara “Recycling Collection Costs By the
Numbers: a National Survey,” Resource Recycling 1994a (September): 53-59
Glenn Gallagher of the California Integrated Waste Management Board
800 households per day is a figure that has been used by the Oregon DEQ in some planning level calculations (per David
Allaway, Oregon DEQ). For comparison, a truck in the City of Seattle serves between 700 and 1,000 households in a day.
7-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 20: ESTIMATES OF PER-UNIT COSTS OF PAINT COLLECTION
AT CURBSIDE PROGRAMS
METRIC
BEST ESTIMATE
Per Pound
$0.19
Per Liquid Gallon
$2.10
Per Gallon Can (40% full)
$0.84
Summary of Collection Cost Estimates from Metropolitan Areas and Isolated Cities-Based on the analysis presented above, the costs of collecting leftover paint can vary widely
depending on collection method used, local conditions, and other factors. In general, this
analysis found that adding leftover paint collection options to existing facilities and programs is
the least-cost method of providing the service. Co-located drop-off points are likely to be the
least cost method because facilities already exist and paint collection activities could be
integrated into the organization’s other efforts. However, this method also involves challenges,
the most significant of which is likely to be the management time needed to solicit and negotiate
with potential partners, few of which are likely to be immediately receptive to adding collection
of leftover paint to their existing efforts.
As an alternative, dedicated leftover paint collection points have appeal due to the relative ease
of establishing facilities. Curbside paint collection has the potential to offer maximum service
and could be cost-competitive to other methods if used by households. These options, however,
are estimated to be more expensive on a per-gallon basis than co-located collection.
EXHIBIT 21: COMPARISONS OF BEST PER-UNIT COSTS OF LEFTOVER PAINT
COLLECTION USING THREE PRIMARY METHODS FROM METROPOLITAN
AREAS AND ISOLATED CITIES
Dedicated Facility
(50% of volume)
Co-located Drop-Off
(45% of volume)
Curbside
(5% of volume)
Hypothetical Overall
Per Pound
$0.22
$0.12
$0.19
$0.18
Per Liquid Gallon
$2.48
$1.40
$2.10
$1.98
Per Gallon Can (40%
full)
$0.99
$0.56
$0.84
$0.79
METRIC
Ultimately, the relative mix of leftover paint collection options will depend heavily on local
conditions and a balance of cost and convenience. Collecting leftover paint using dedicated
facilities was estimated to cost $2.48 per liquid gallon, as summarized in Exhibit 21. Actual
system-wide costs could be reduced if co-located drop-off points could be developed in
significant numbers, and increased convenience (and therefore quantities) could be achieved by
offering curbside collection. For example, a hypothetical system with half of all leftover paint
collected at dedicated facilities, 45 percent collected at co-located drop-off points, and five
percent collected curbside could cost approximately $1.98 per gallon, not including the
transportation, aggregation, and processing activities to be discussed below.
7-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Collection from Very Rural Areas
It is assumed that mobile collections will be the method to collect leftover paint from very rural
areas. Municipalities or other organizations will promote the collection event and inform users
about what kinds of paint products will be collected. These mobile collections will consist of a
24- or 30-foot truck making a number of stops at promoted collection events to collect paint.
Paint cans will be put into a gaylord box and transported to the nearest metropolitan area or
isolated city for aggregation into their paint collection system.
Costs for mobile collections from rural areas will be approximately $80 per gaylord box for
delivery within 250 miles.26 Phillips Environmental, one of the leaders in rural mobile collection
events, uses this to estimate rural collection costs. Assuming 140 one-gallon cans per gaylord
box and that each is 40 percent full, each gaylord box will contain approximately 56 gallons;
therefore, the cost for mobile collection from rural areas and transport to the nearest metropolitan
area or isolated city will be $1.43 per gallon. While this is less than the unit cost for collection
from metropolitan areas, it should be noted that this relies on the collection, aggregation, and
transportation infrastructure created for the metropolitan areas.
AGGREGATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Most collection points will not have space to accommodate enough paint cans to fill a long-haul
trucking trailer for transport to a paint processor. In these cases an intermediate transportation
and aggregation system will be needed.
Costs for aggregation and transportation can vary widely, but our estimates focused on
establishing a small stand-alone aggregation facility in a warehouse and then operating a 24-foot
box van in a “milk run” route to collect paint from individual collection points. Other types of
aggregation are also possible – for example, curbside collection is a form of aggregation in itself,
and large dedicated collection sites could also serve as aggregation points. However, it is
assumed that at least one stand-alone aggregation facility will be needed in each metropolitan
area of the country. The cost estimates were developed accordingly.
Transportation to the Aggregation Points
Short-haul trucking (e.g., from the initial collection point to the aggregation facility) is a
significant cost. Based on interviews with several trucking and logistics companies, it is
assumed that short-haul trucking will be performed in a 24-foot box van that can hold 12 gaylord
boxes. Average charges for this type of service are approximately $75 per hour including truck
and driver; assuming an eight-hour day, this equates to $600 for the day. Assuming 12 gaylords
collected per day, 140 cans per gaylord, and 0.4 gallons per can, this equates to $0.89 per liquid
gallon for transporting leftover paint from collection points to aggregation points.
This “milk-run” type of service could be used for either dedicated or co-located collection points,
including retail stores. One significant alternative to milk-run collection available to retail stores
26
As estimated by Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Environmental
7-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
or other private locations, however, is to implement back-haul transportation to existing
distribution centers, particularly for larger stores and chains with highly centralized distribution.
For example, the truck that delivers new paint, hardware, or other building materials from the
distribution center is generally returning empty and could instead be carrying leftover paint for
very low marginal cost. With few existing models outside of those in Illinois and Oregon for
retail back haul, however, this option cannot be recommended without significant additional
research. Nevertheless, interested retailers, distributors, and manufacturers could potentially
work together to develop a leftover paint collection system with significant cost savings over
dedicated or other co-located systems that use ‘milk-run’ transportation and aggregation. In
addition, as was the case with PSI’s pilot project with Benjamin Moore, new paint could be
distributed to retail stores and, on the backhaul, company trucks could pick up metal paint cages
filled with cans at municipal paint collection depots. These pickups could really take place
anywhere that the transportation logistics might be feasible.
Aggregation of paint will also be needed in smaller communities such as the “isolated” cities
identified in Section 3. In some cases, aggregation may be possible at existing collection sites,
especially any dedicated facilities. In other cases, however, it would be necessary to transport
paint to the nearest metropolitan area’s aggregation facility since not enough paint would be
generated in the isolated city to support a stand-alone aggregation facility. Assuming that each
isolated city is located an average of two hours from the nearest metropolitan area, the additional
cost for each truck would be approximately $300, assuming round-trip transportation totaling
four hours. This would raise milk-run costs for isolated cities from $0.89 per gallon to $1.34 per
gallon. The weighted average of these two costs is $0.94 per gallon.27
Operation of the Aggregation Facility
It is estimated that an aggregation facility will need to accommodate at least three 53-foot box
vans of paint (e.g. 156 gaylord boxes). With each pair of stacked gaylords taking up 13 square
feet, plus a one-foot buffer on each side for maneuvering, this totals 2,500 square feet. Adding in
1,000 square feet for loading/unloading/office space and a 20 percent buffer brings the total to
4,200 square feet.
Costs of operating such an aggregation facility are estimated as follows:

27
28
29
Rent and Utilities: $35,000 per year. This figure was calculated by considering
average warehouse leasing rates across the country, which currently average
approximately $4.41.per square foot28 ; adding approximately $4.00 per square foot
for triple net (taxes, insurance, and maintenance) and utilities29 brings total rental cost
to $8.41 per square foot. Therefore, the annual cost for rent and utilities for an
aggregation facility are approximately $35,000 annually (4,200 square feet times
$8.41 per square foot per year).
The weighted average was calculated based on 241 million people living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 29 million
people living in Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Source: Grubb & Ellis
Source: Barbara Jacobsen, the Jacobsen Group, Seattle, Washington
7-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
30
31
32

Staff: $0.07 per gallon. It is assumed that staff needs were proportional to paint
throughput as follows: Begin with a base wage rate for laborers of $30,000 per year,
then add in benefits (at a ratio of 35 percent) to bring the wage rate to $40,500 per
year. Then assume one supervisor-hour for each four laborer-hours; with supervisors
commanding a 50 percent wage premium, this brings the annual cost per laborer
(including benefits and supervision) to $56,000, or $28 per hour, or $0.46 per minute.
Now assume that it takes four minutes to forklift one gaylord between a truck and the
facility, i.e., eight minutes total to transport one pallet from a milk-run truck to the
facility and then to a long-haul truck. With 56 liquid gallons of paint per gaylord, this
calculates to $0.07 per gallon in labor costs. These estimates assume that any needed
documentation of gaylord contents has occurred at the point of collection, that all
sorting and removal of unwanted items will take place at the recycler, and therefore
that the gaylords are not unpacked but instead simply re-loaded onto 53-foot vans.
An aggregation point for a moderately-sized metropolitan area such as Saint Louis
(with a paint throughput of between approximately 200,000 and 700,000 gallons per
year) would therefore incur between $14,000 and $49,000 (200,000 gallons times
$0.07 per gallon equals $14,000) in labor costs if no inspection was needed and
would only need to be staffed on a part time basis.

Other overhead and administration: $21,000 per year. This includes annual cost
estimates of $7,000 per year for rental and operation of a forklift, $2,000 for
telecommunications, $5,000 for miscellaneous equipment and furniture, $4,000 for IT
equipment and support, and $3,000 for travel of a supervisor to out of town meetings
and conferences, as needed.

Materials: $0.31 per gallon. A variety of packaging options are possible to transport
leftover paint from collection point to end destination at a recycler. Options currently
in use include cardboard gaylord boxes, gaylord-size paint cages, and plastic tub
skids30. Cost estimates based on use of cardboard gaylord boxes were developed due
to their ubiquity and the fact that using them does not require a system to redistribute
permanent cages or plastic tub skids to collection points. These other two options
could offer some potential cost savings if redistribution logistics could be resolved;
however, these savings are small compared to the overall estimated cost of this
system and so are not explored further here. Costs for gaylords (measuring 48” long
by 40” wide by 36” high) are estimated at $30 new or $15 used31. A net cost for each
gaylord box was assumed to be $15. Each box can hold approximately 140 gallon
cans of paint – assuming each is 40 percent full yields a cost of $0.27 per gallon. In
addition, each box must be placed on a pallet, for which a net cost of $2 per pallet per
trip and $0.04 per gallon32 was assumed.
An additional option possible for non-hazardous, latex paint is shrink-wrapped pallets. Since oil-based paint will be
transported in this system, shrink-wrapped pallets are not viable for this model due to federal Department of Transportation
regulations.
As estimated by Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Environmental
Pallets could either be purchased new for $8-$10 and resold for $5 to $7 or re-used several time
7-9
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Because of the fixed costs of rent, utilities, and overhead, the overall cost per gallon for the rental
facility will depend on how many gallons of paint move through the facility each year: the higher
the throughput, the lower the cost per gallon. Assuming each metropolitan area (357 in total) has
an aggregation facility, and all gallons of paint collected travel through an aggregation point, the
31 million gallons of paint collected in metro areas and isolated cities imply an average
throughput of approximately 86,000 gallons per year per aggregation facility. For this level of
throughput, the overall average cost including rent, administration, and overhead would be $0.66
per gallon.33 Adding $0.07 per pound of labor and $0.31 per pound for materials (as estimated
above) would bring total estimated average costs to approximately $1.04 per gallon, not
including the milk run transportation.
Exhibit 22 summarizes the estimated individual and total costs of aggregating paint as described
above.
EXHIBIT 22: ESTIMATES OF PER-GALLON ANNUAL AGGREGATION COSTS
AGGREGATION FACTOR
PER-GALLON COST
“Milk Run” Transportation
$0.94/gallon
Operation of Aggregation Facility
$0.66/gallon
Labor at Aggregation Facility34
$0.07/gallon
Materials at Aggregation Facility
$0.31/gallon
Total Aggregation Costs
$1.98/gallon
Transportation to Processing Center
Transportation to a processing center will be least costly if performed using 53-foot box vans.
Interviews with three shipping companies35 yielded an average cost of $2.35 per mile given
current fuel prices of about $3 per gallon. Assuming 26 pallets and gaylords double-stacked, for
a total of 7,300 one-gallon cans and 2,900 liquid gallons, yields an average cost of $0.08 per
gallon per 100 miles. GIS analysis was then used to estimate distances from each aggregation
facility to the nearest processing facility. These distances were rounded up to the nearest 100
miles, so that these distances ranged from 100 miles (e.g., in the area around Portland, Oregon)
to 1000 miles (for many facilities in Florida and some facilities in Texas). Transportation costs
per gallon varied considerably based on distance to the nearest recycler, but the overall weighted
average across all metropolitan areas was $0.32 per gallon. In some areas, particularly
California, where paint is classified as a hazardous material, there may be a need to ship trailers
before they fill to accommodate storage time limits for hazardous materials.
In addition, note that some cost savings on long-distance transport would be achieved by locating
new processing facilities in under-served regions of the country, as recommended in Section 5.
33
34
35
Calculated as ($35,282 rent +$21,000 overhead and admin)/85,600
Assumes inspection of individual cans will not be needed
Yellow Trucking, Interstate Distributor Co., and Peninsula Trucking
7-10
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
In the context of the overall costs of managing leftover paint, these savings are relatively small.
Still, the savings achieved may be able to support the cost-effectiveness of building new
processing facilities.
Summary of Aggregation and Transportation Cost Estimates
The major drivers of aggregation and transportation costs are “milk-run” pick-ups (estimated at
$0.94 per gallon) and the cost of the aggregation facility (which varies considerably based on
throughput but is estimated to average $0.66 plus labor of at least $0.07 per gallon). Long-haul
trucking charges (estimated at $0.08 per gallon per 100 miles) are less significant, contributing
an average of $0.32 to total costs per gallon. Also relatively minor are the costs of pallets and
other materials, estimated at $0.31 per gallon. Exhibit 23 displays the cost elements collection,
aggregation and transportation system.
EXHIBIT 23: COLLECTION, AGGREGATION AND TRANSPORTATION
COST ELEMENTS
Aggregation (Milk Run)
Aggregation
(Operation)
Collection
(Operation)
Aggregation (Labor)
Aggregation (Materials)
Transport
Opportunities for significant cost savings exist for both of the two major drivers of aggregation
and transportation costs. Milk-run costs could be reduced by limiting the number of collection
facilities (although this would decrease convenience and collection quantities), or by identifying
collection facilities with the capacity to store multiple pallets on-site. Aggregation facility costs
could likely be reduced by outsourcing this task to a trucking company that also provides
logistics or consolidation services, although the hazardous nature of oil-based paint may limit the
number of companies who could provide such a service. Both milk-run costs and aggregation
facility costs would probably be minimized by working with a company that can bundle both of
these services together with long-haul trucking to provide a door-to-door transportation solution.
ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEM-WIDE COLLECTION, AGGREGATION AND
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
This section of the report has described per-gallon cost estimates for a nationally coordinated
infrastructure to collect, aggregate, and transport leftover paint to re-processors. The following
exhibits summarize the estimate discussed above in terms of collection, aggregation (which
includes “milk run” transportation, operation of an aggregation facility, and packaging
materials), and transportation to the nearest processing facility. Note that the construction of
7-11
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
new processing facilities could help decrease these transportation costs and help optimize the
system. However, note also that this final transportation is a relatively small component of
overall costs. Although siting a new processing facility could be cost effective if it reduces
transportation costs by more than the costs of establishing that new facility, the overall benefit
would still likely be small compared to the overall costs of the system.
Exhibit 24 summarizes the costs of operating a system to collect leftover paint and deliver it to
paint recyclers. Significant cost-saving options may be available, however. In particular,
collecting greater quantities of paint at co-located facilities (including retail stores) offers the
potential of reduced per-gallon costs. However, this option comes with its own challenges. In
particular, developing the business relationships to implement co-located collection at a
significant level would take many years.
EXHIBIT 24: ESTIMATES OF PER-GALLON ANNUAL COLLECTION,
AGGREGATION, AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM METROPOLITAN
AREAS AND ISOLATED CITIES
COLLECTION, AGGREGATION,
AND TRANSPORTATION FACTOR
PER-GALLON COST
Collection36
$1.98/gallon
Aggregation37
$1.98/gallon
Transportation to Processor
$0.32/gallon
Total
$4.28/gallon
Section 3 of the report presented estimates of the quantity of leftover paint likely to be collected:
0.06, 0.11, 0.17, and 0.23 gallons per person under various scenarios corresponding to increased
effectiveness over time. Applying these totals to the 270 million people located in metropolitan
areas (including super-urban cities) and isolated cities (approximated by the Census Bureau’s
micropolitan statistical areas) yields estimates of paint volumes collected. By combining
estimates of paint collection with per-gallon cost estimates, annual system-wide cost estimates
can be developed. Exhibit 25 summarizes the total annual cost estimates for this leftover paint
collection infrastructure. For example, assuming a low collection rate of 0.06 gallons per person
leads to a collected paint quantity of 16 million gallons in metropolitan areas and isolated cities.
Multiplying 16 million gallons by a collection cost of $1.98 per gallon gives a total collection
cost of $32 million in metropolitan areas and isolated cities. Similarly, the aggregation and
transportation costs were derived by multiplying the collected paint quantity of 16 million
gallons by $1.98 and $0.32, respectively.
36
37
This estimate assumes 45 percent of paint collected at co-located drop-off points, five percent collected curbside, and 50
percent collected at dedicated facilities.
This is the cost for metro areas and includes “milk-run” logistics to transport paint from collection points to the aggregation
facility.
7-12
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 25: ESTIMATES OF TOTAL ANNUAL COLLECTION,
AGGREGATION, AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS
COLLECTION, AGGREGATION, AND
TRANSPORTATION FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EXTRA HIGH
Metro Area/Isolated City
16.3 million
29.9 million
46.2 million
62.6 million
Rural Areas
1.2 million
2.2 million
3.4 million
4.6 million
17.5 million
32.1 million
49.6 million
67.2 million
Metro Area/Isolated City39
$32 million
$59 million
$91 million
$124 million
Rural Areas40
$2 million
$3 million
$5 million
$7 million
$34 million
$62 million
$96 million
$131 million
Aggregation
$35 million
$64 million
$98 million
$133 million
Transportation to Recycler
$6 million
$10 million
$16 million
$22 million
$75 million
$136 million
$210 million
$286 million
Gallons Collected 38
Total Gallons Collected
Collection Costs
Total Collection Costs
Total41
Note that these costs are only estimates and are dependent on numerous assumptions related to
per-gallon costs to operate the infrastructure as well as expected quantities of leftover paint to be
collected.
In addition, this report has noted numerous opportunities for cost savings – particularly at the
point of collection but also at aggregation. Local conditions and opportunities vary considerably,
and it is not possible to recommend a single method or cost structure that would apply to every
community.
In addition, there are likely economies of scale that could not be captured by this relatively
limited modeling exercise. Per-gallon costs that are scalable to multiple-sized collection and
aggregation facilities were developed, but these costs will almost always go down for increased
throughput and go up for decreased throughput.
Despite these limitations, our assessment is that the figures presented here are reasonable
estimates of the costs of operating a leftover paint infrastructure in urban areas and isolated cities
of the United States given the necessary simplifications and assumptions made. However, at
over $4 per liquid gallon of paint collected and delivered to a processing center, the cost
38
39
40
41
From Exhibit 8. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that all generated leftover paint is transported to a processing facility.
There was insufficient data to estimate the proportion of paint that would be diverted to reuse programs, the extent to which
reuse programs would affect the quantity of usable latex paint, or the cost of reuse programs.
Based on collection costs of $1.98 per gallon, hypothetical value detailed in Exhibit 21.
Based on $1.43 per gallon
Figures may not add to total due to rounding.
7-13
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
effectiveness of a comprehensive system to collect, process, and market recycled paint will
depend heavily on the economics of processing and the final product price that can be supported
by the market.
PROCESSING FACILITY
Design Costs
Designing a paint processing facility often requires the expertise of an engineering firm to design
buildings, evaluate traffic flow patterns, write construction material specifications, and oversee
construction contractors. In addition to the construction of the facility, there are initial
expenditures for the purchase of equipment, such as forklifts, paint filtering and packaging
equipment, paint can openers, conveyer belt systems, and emergency response equipment. When
designing a facility, serious attention should be paid to capital investment (planning, design,
built-in operating efficiencies, equipment selection, and construction or remodeling costs) in
order to reduce the long-term facility operation costs.
These estimated costs are based on designs from programs with similar facilities. Costs are
estimated and are based on construction figures from the R.S. Means 2005 Construction Catalog,
paint industry equipment suppliers data, and industry experts42. Costs for actual construction are
site dependent and can vary based on site layout, labor costs and price of materials at the time of
actual site design and construction. Building costs in Exhibit 26 are 25 percent higher than
normal construction costs to account for explosion-proofing of the flammables bulking room.
An experienced design team working with local building officials can help coordinate the budget
and facility needs while providing realistic construction estimates.
Program Staffing
Staffing estimates for the facility are based on year round operations, five-day work weeks, and
one 8-hour daily shift. Salary estimates are conservative and will be dependent on the area of the
country the facility is located. Facility insurance was not considered since it can vary widely
around the country and should be accounted for when a facility is ready to go online.
The standard configuration for the facility requires a minimum 10 paint sorters, 2.5 processing
support staff (forklift operation, removing bad paint and other materials for disposal and
recycling), 3.5 staff for oil-based paint bulking operation, 3.5 staff for production (paint
blending, mixing, filtering, packaging and boxing, palletizing), a laboratory technician, a plant
supervisor and an administrative assistant. If demand and capacity increase, the facility can add
an additional shift. The staffing estimates are configured to support one eight-hour shift for a
five-day work week.
42
Curt Bailey, CB Coating Consulting and Inspection, Inc.
7-14
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 26: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FOR PAINT PROCESSING FACILITY
Building Component
Warehouse Building with Office Space,
Lab, Flammables Room, & Shop
(22,500 square feet with concrete floor
and foundation, walls, metal roof,
internal framing, windows)
Mechanical and Electrical
(Plumbing, ventilation / HVAC,
sprinkler system, electrical, and
lighting)
Conveyers and Chutes
Funnel Chutes / Butterfly Valve
Roller Conveyors
Circular Rotating Accumulation Table
Second Level Room
Plant Equipment
Mechanical Paint Can Openers
Forklifts
High Spd Dispersers (25 HP Var Sp)
Tanks (1,000 gallons / plumbing)
Pumps, 2" air driven
Fully Automated Case Erector, Packer
Sealer and Palletizer
Batch Number Coder
1 gal can Filler
5 gal pail filler, portable
Can Crushers
300 gal poly totes /valve
Wire Bins, 1 yard³
Steel 55 gal DOT, OH drums
Waste 100 cf
100 CFM Air Compressor, Electric
Laboratory Equipment
Stormer KU-2 Viscosity Tester
Wgt / Gal Cups
77 Deg. F Constant Temperature Bath
Bird Applicators, Doctor Blades
Gloss & Sheet Meter
Color Matching Computer &
Spectrophotometer
Flash Point Tester
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
$125 per square foot
$2,812,500
1
25% of Building Costs
Number
$703,125
12
4
2
$600 each
$500 each
$4,000 each
$7,200
$2,000
$8,000
2
$25,000 each
$50,000
3
3
4
3
4
$3,000 each
$24,000 each
$24,000 each
$5,000 each
$2,500 each
$9,000
$72,000
$96,000
$15,000
$10,000
1
$200,000 each
$200,000
1
4
1
3
40
150
25
2
1
$3,500 each
$19,500 each
$24,500 each
$10,000 each
$300 each
$150 each
$50 each
$3,000 each
$8,000 each
$3,500
$78,000
$24,500
$30,000
$12,000
$22,500
$1,250
$6,000
$8,000
1
2
1
6
1
$2,200 each
$500 each
$500 each
$500 each
$5,000 each
$2,200
$1,000
$500
$3,000
$5,000
1
$15,000 each
$15,000
1
$3,500 each
$3,500
Total*
$4,200,775
* Cost estimates based on data from the R.S. Means 2005 Construction Catalog and paint industry equipment suppliers.
7-15
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 27: ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FACILITY STAFFING AND OPERATION
Expense
Number
Labor
Paint Sorters
Processing Support (forklift, etc)
Oil-Based Paint Bulking
Product Production
Laboratory Technician
Facility Manager
Administrative Assistant
10
2.5
3.5
3.5
1
1
1
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$58,000
$95,000
$40,500
Operating Expenses
Supplies*
Annual Training
Utilities, Maintenance, Repairs
Laboratory Testing (Green Seal)
1
22.5
1
1
$180,000
$500
$100,000
$15,000
Damaged Goods
Wastewater Treatment
210
1
Pre-printed one-gallon cans
600,000
Oil-Based Paint Disposal
200,000
Unusable Latex Disposal
Used Plastic Pail Disposal
Facility Amortization
A
Unit Cost
Total Cost
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
$405,000
$101,250
$141,750
$141,750
$58,000
$95,000
$40,500
per year
per employee
per year
per year
$180,000
$11,250
$100,000
$15,000
$0.88 per gallon
C
$50,000 per year
$50,000
D
$0.77 per gallon
E
$1.80 per gallon
$463,500
E
$360,000
1.00
$1.80 per gallon
C
$60,000 per year
1
F
$373,144 per year
200,000
$185
Total*
$360,000
$60,000
$373,144
$2,956,329
*
A
B
C
D
Supplies include drums, sorbent materials, and personal protective equipment
NPCA estimates 0.035 percent of processed paint will be damaged and require disposal.
Wally Kiccma, Hotz Environmental, personal communication 2006
Jim Quinn, personal communication 2006
Assumes 15% of paint sold in 1-gallon metal cans at a cost of $1.75 per gallon and
85% of paint sold in 5-gallon buckets at a cost of $0.60 per gallon.
E Scott Thomas, Sherwin Williams
F Assumes construction costs of $4.2 Million at 8% interest over 30 years.
It is important to note these estimates are averages based on construction and salary data for
2005. Costs and salaries can vary throughout the country. The estimates should be researched
further in the event or construction of a facility, and the budgeted expenses should be adjusted
accordingly.
Assuming the paint facility design described in this section can process one million gallons of
paint per year, the annual operating cost per gallon will be $2.55 ($2.55 million dollars in annual
operating costs divided by an annual throughput of one million gallons).
7-16
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SECTION 8
CONCLUSIONS
Through an assessment of leftover paint quantities generated in the U.S., as well as data from
existing HHW and paint collection programs, a nationally-coordinated paint management
system, entailing the collection of leftover oil-based and latex paint, and the production and sale
of consolidated latex paint, was modeled and priced. Given government and industry
commitment to leftover paint management, a collection rate of up to 10 percent of paint sales can
be achieved in 10 years through development of additional paint collection points, aggregation
points, and organized transport to a processor.
SIGNIFICANT MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS
Information and data researched for development of this model was gathered from previous
reports developed for PSI, industry and government representatives currently managing paint
collection and processing programs, and from other related sources such as transport companies
and recycling program specialists. Key assumptions and results are summarized herein.
Leftover Paint Quantities
The quantity of leftover paint that can be collected through a nationally-coordinated paint
management system will be initially low: 2.5 percent of paint sales, which translates to 0.06
gallons per person or 17.5 million gallons annually. As the system grows, perhaps within three
to five years, collected paint quantities will grow to the medium collection rate: 5.0 percent of
paint sales which translates to 0.11 gallons per person or 32.1 million gallons annually. Further
system growth and refinement between years five and seven will result in a high level of paint
that can be collected: 7.5 percent of paint sales, which translates to 0.17 gallons per person or
49.6 million gallons annually. By year 10, the system can collect as much as 10 percent of paint
sales, which translates into 0.23 gallons per person or 67.2 million gallons annually.
Collection Points
The most cost-effective method of collecting leftover paint generated from metropolitan areas
and isolated cities are permanent collection points and curbside collection. Approximately 2,000
collection points are required to collect a low level of paint; 5,000 to collect a medium/high level
of paint; and 8,000 to collect a high/extra high level of paint. Collection from very rural areas
will be through mobile collection events rather than a permanent facility. Curbside collection of
paint is offered by very few communities now but could be a cost-effective method of collection.
Aggregation and Transportation
Because there are fewer than 10 paint processors in North America, most collection points will
have to ship leftover paint long distances for processing. Economics and space constraints,
however, will generally require an intermediate aggregation point to consolidate paint cans
collected at individual collection points for cost-effective shipping to the processor. It was
assumed for this study that each Metropolitan Statistical Area will require at least one
8-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
aggregation point, resulting in over 350 aggregation points in the U.S. Shipping from the
aggregation points will be least costly in 53-foot box vans. Aggregation for metropolitan areas
will occur in 24-foot box vans under a “milk run” system. Paint collected from very rural areas
using mobile collection events will be transported to the nearest metropolitan area or isolated city
for aggregation.
Processing Facilities
Representatives from nine of the ten existing processing facilities were interviewed for this study
and all revealed excess capacity. This is mainly because the limited demand for the final product
(recycled paint either at retail, commercial or export markets) is the main barrier to processing
additional leftover paint (e.g., the supply). Currently, there is a need for additional paint
processing capacity in the South, East, and Southeast areas of the U.S., which can support the
addition of three to seven new facilities. As collection of leftover paint increases through a
nationally-coordinated system, the number of additional facilities needed approaches 15,
distributed throughout all regions of the U.S. except the West.
Processing Facility Design Recommendations
A conceptual design of a paint processing facility was developed for this study to process
600,000 gallons of latex paint per year. Some facilities may choose to process oil-based paints
as well, but the likely market for the oil-based paint will be fuel blends for cement kilns.
Capital costs for the facility are estimated to be $4.2 million with annual operating expenses of
$2.96 million (including labor, supplies, utilities/maintenance, laboratory testing, disposal costs,
and facility amortization).
PRELIMINARY COSTS
Based on the model described above and in Sections 2 through 6, costs were developed for each
aspect of the system: collection, aggregation, and transport to a processing facility, and
processing facility construction and operation. Cost elements are summarized below
Collection
The relative mix of leftover paint collection options will depend heavily on local conditions and
a balance of cost and convenience. Assuming that half of all leftover paint generated in
metropolitan areas and isolated cities will be collected at dedicated facilities at a rate of $2.48 per
gallon, 45 percent collected at co-located drop-off points at a rate of $1.40 per gallon, and five
percent collected curbside at a rate of $2.10 per gallon, the overall collection system from
metropolitan areas and isolated cities could cost approximately $1.98 per gallon.
Mobile collection programs serving very rural areas are expected to cost $1.43 per gallon. This
estimate is for collection and transport to the nearest metropolitan area or isolated city and does
not include the cost of establishing permanent collection points or curbside collection. In other
words, collection from very rural areas is $1.43 per gallon more than the cost to collect leftover
paint in metropolitan areas or in isolated cities.
8-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Aggregation
The costs of aggregation are comprised of “milk-run” transportation costs to collect paint from
collection points, operation of an aggregation facility (at least one for each metropolitan area),
labor at the aggregation facility, and materials for storing collected paint. Aggregation costs are
estimated to be $1.98 per gallon.
Transportation to Processor
Transportation to a processing center will be least costly if performed using 53-foot box vans.
GIS analysis was used to estimate distances from each aggregation facility to the nearest
processing facility and the overall weighted average across all metropolitan areas was $0.32 per
gallon.
Processing Facility
A processing facility designed to process 600,000 gallons of latex paint (accepting one million
gallons of paint including oil-based paint and unusable latex) was priced at $4.2 million. Annual
operational costs are expected to be approximately $2.96 million. The facility could be upgraded
to process up to 1.2 million gallons of latex paint (accepting two million gallons of paint
including oil-based paint and unusable latex) by running a second shift. Annual operational
costs will increase with an additional shift.
Total System Costs
Collection, aggregation, and transportation for a nationally-coordinated paint management
system is expected to start at $72 million collecting a low level of paint (0.06 gallons per
person). Extra high collection rates (0.23 gallons per person), where the system should be in ten
years, is estimated to be $289 million annually. This total cost does not include the cost of
marketing, which could be as high as 25 percent of the retail sale price, for things such as
warehousing, transport to retail, retail shelf space, and product promotion.
SCHEDULE
The system as described in this report will require a ramping up of collection points, aggregation
points, long-haul transport systems, and processing capacity over time. Current collection of
leftover paint in the U.S. (mostly through the HHW system) is believed to be at a very low rate
now. There are some programs in the U.S. that have achieved a low to medium collection rate;
however, on a national basis, the U.S. in its entirety is likely at a very low rate. Upon
implementation of a nationally-coordinated system, it is envisioned that approximately three
years of ramping up will be required to bring leftover paint collection to the Low level: three
more years to a medium level; three more years to a high level, and three more years to an extra
high level. Using this schedule, costs related to paint sales are explored in the following
subsection. Exhibit 28 displays the paint collection according to the anticipated schedule.
8-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
COLLECTED PAINT
(million gallons)
EXHIBIT 28: PAINT COLLECTION QUANTITIES OVER TIME
80
Extra High
60
High
40
Medium
Low
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
YEAR
8
9
10
11
12
COSTS RELATED TO PAINT SALES
Exhibit 29 provides the best estimates of the per-gallon costs needed to operate a nationally
coordinated infrastructure for collecting leftover paint. These are planning-level, order-ofmagnitude costs that represent the best estimates given available information. In particular, the
variability in each of these costs is potentially significant.
EXHIBIT 29: TOTAL ANNUAL SYSTEM COSTS PER GALLON
SYSTEM FACTOR
PER-GALLON COSTS
Collection43
$1.98
Aggregation44
$1.98
Transportation to Recycler
$0.32
Processing45
$2.96
Administration46
$1.35
Total
43
44
45
46
$8.59
This estimate assumes 45% of paint collected at co-located drop-off points, 5% collected curbside, and 50% collected at
dedicated facilities.
Includes “milk-run” logistics to transport paint from collection points to the aggregation facility
Processing cost is based on facility operating costs presented in Exhibit 26 of $2.96 million per year divided by an annual
throughput of one million gallons..
Administration cost is based on cost estimates of a third-party organization in Washington and Oregon to coordinate
electronics recycling (Walter Alcorn, Alcorn Consulting, 2006). Estimated costs for the first four years of the organization
were $6.3 million to coordinate the recycling of 53 million pounds of material, for an average of $0.12 per pound. For paint,
this would translate into $1.35 per liquid gallon (assuming a one-gallon can weighs 0.5 pounds and cans are 40% full on
average). This cost included estimates of rent, information management, telecommunications, board meetings, education and
outreach, equipment and supplies, and staff of 7 including an executive director, contracts manager, accounts
payable/receivable, office manager, outreach coordinator, and two support staff.
8-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
As presented in Exhibit 29, the cost to collect, aggregate, transport, and process, paint in addition
to providing system administration is approximately $8.59 per gallon. After unusable latex and
oil-based paints are sorted out and sent for disposal or fuel markets, it is expected that the
remaining quantity of recyclable latex will be approximately 60 percent of what is collected.
CHANGING CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT THE NATIONALLY-COORDINATED
SYSTEM
Exhibit 30 provides a rough estimate of possible performance and costs associated with a
nationally-coordinated system. The low collection rates column would reflect a system that
exists in a few parts of the U.S. and Canada but would need to be developed in much of the U.S.
Even with that estimate it is reasonable to project that a well run system could produce cost
savings. This could be accomplished through lower costs or higher revenues or a combination of
those two. The intent of these scenarios is to determine the price that recycled paint would need
to be sold at for the entire costs of its production and marketing to be covered. While the current
sale price of recycled paint has been less than $10, the higher pricing scenarios are included only
to be instructive as to the price point that needs to be reached for the sale of recycled paint to
raise sufficient revenue to finance the entire leftover paint management infrastructure.
Reuse Programs
For modeling purposes, it was assumed that all generated leftover paint is transported to a
processing facility. There was insufficient data to estimate the proportion of paint that would be
diverted to reuse programs, the extent to which reuse programs would affect the quantity of
usable latex paint, or the cost of reuse programs. Reuse programs would likely reduce total
system costs. Additionally, reuse programs would generate revenue and this was not
incorporated into the model.
Sensitivity Analysis
As can be seen in Exhibit 30, an additional cost of $0.23 per gallon would be necessary to cover
system costs of collection, aggregation, transport, and processing the leftover paint quantities for
a low collection rate (assuming a sale price of $0). The cost per gallon under this scenario
increases to $0.92 per gallon for an extra high collection rate. On the other hand, the system
could show a profit if a sale price of $20 per gallon could be achieved.
The costs presented in Exhibit 30 are sensitive to the $8.59 per gallon costs of the infrastructure
which includes collection, aggregation, transport, processing, and administrative costs. Three
cost factors were analyzed for their impact on the costs presented in Exhibit 30: collection
method, administrative costs, and processing costs.
8-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
EXHIBIT 30: SYSTEM COSTS COMPARED TO VIRGIN PAINT SALES
COLLECTION RATE
METRIC
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EXTRA HIGH
Gallons Collected47
17.5 million
32.1 million
49.6 million
67.2 million
System Costs
Collect/Aggregate/Transport48
Processing49
Administration50
Total System Costs
$75 million
$52 million
$24 million
$151 million
$136 million
$95 million
$43 million
$274 million
$210 million
$147 million
$67 million
$424 million
$286 million
$199 million
$91 million
$576 million
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated51
10.5 million
19.3 million
29.8 million
40.3 million
$0
$97 million
$193 million
$290 million
$386 million
$0
$149 million
$298 million
$447 million
$596 million
$0
$202 million
$403 million
$605 million
$806 million
$0
$24 million
$48 million
$72 million
$97 million
$0
$37 million
$75 million
$112 million
$149 million
$0
$50 million
$101 million
$151 million
$202 million
Sale Price52
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$53 million
$10 per gallon
$105 million
$15 per gallon
$158 million
$20 per gallon
$210 million
53
Marketing
Assuming $0/gallon sale price
$0
Assuming $5/gallon sale price
$13 million
Assuming $10/gallon sale price
$26 million
Assuming $15/gallon sale price
$39 million
Assuming $20/gallon sale price
$53 million
Net Cost (System Costs – (Sale Price - Marketing) )
Assuming $0/gallon sale price
Assuming $5/gallon sale price
Assuming $10/gallon sale price
Assuming $15/gallon sale price
Assuming $20/gallon sale price
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold54
$151 million
$112 million
$72 million
$33 million
-$7 million
637 million
$274 million
$202 million
$129 million
$57 million
-$16 million
637 million
$424 million
$312 million
$201 million
$89 million
-$23 million
637 million
$576 million
$425 million
$273 million
$123 million
-$29 million
637 million
Net Cost per Gallon Sold55
Assuming $0/gallon sale price
Assuming $5/gallon sale price
Assuming $10/gallon sale price
Assuming $15/gallon sale price
Assuming $20/gallon sale price
$0.24
$0.18
$0.11
$0.05
-$0.01
$0.43
$0.32
$0.20
$0.09
-$0.02
$0.67
$0.49
$0.31
$0.14
-$0.04
$0.90
$0.67
$0.43
$0.19
-$0.04
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
From Exhibit 8
From Exhibit 25
Gallons collected multiplied by processing unit cost ($2.96 per gallon, from Exhibit 29)
Gallons collected multiplied by administration unit cost ($1.35 per gallon, from Exhibit 29)
Latex paint packaged is assumed to be 60 percent of paint collected: the remaining portion after unusable latex and oil-based
paints have been disposed or sent to fuel markets.
Sale price of consolidated latex paint
Assumes marketing costs are 25 percent of the sale price
Gallons of virgin paint sold from 2000 estimate of 637 million gallons
Net costs (system costs minus revenue) divided by Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
8-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Collection Methods-Exhibit 21 presents an overall collection cost based on assumptions of the collection method,
namely 50 percent dedicated facilities, 45 percent co-located drop-offs, and five percent curbside
collection. A weighted average of these costs is $1.98.
The current method of collecting leftover paint quantities is primarily HHW facilities. By
assuming that the low collection rate will be more like the current method, specifically that paint
collection will be 90 percent dedicated facilities, 10 percent co-located drop-offs, and zero
percent curbside collection, the cost of collection increases from $1.98 to $2.37 per gallon. This
increases the overall system cost from $8.59 to $8.98 per gallon. This in turn will increase the
net cost per gallon sold one cent for the low collection rate up to four cents for the extra high
collection rate.
A similar decrease is seen when assuming a more developed collection system will consist of 10
percent dedicated facilities, 85 percent co-located drop-offs, and five percent curbside collection.
The cost of collection decreases from $1.98 to $1.54 per gallon. This decreases the overall
system cost from $8.59 to $8.15 per gallon. This in turn will decrease the net cost per gallon
sold by one cent for the low collection rate up to five cents for the extra high collection rate.
Administrative Costs-Administrative costs presented in Exhibit 29 reflect an administration fee of $1.35 per gallon,
which is that realized by the electronics recycling in Washington and Oregon. If it can be
assumed that a mature system will need half that cost, or $0.70 per gallon, the system cost will
decrease to $$8.59 from $7.94 per gallon. This in turn will decrease the net cost per gallon sold
by two cents for the low collection rate up to seven cents for the high collection rate.
Processing Costs-Processing costs presented in Exhibit 27 reflect “drum-rate” disposal costs for unusable latex
and oil-based paint of $1.80 per gallon. If the processing facility could utilize bulk disposal
rates, there could be a significant savings in processing costs. Bulk disposal rates are
approximately $0.75 per gallon. This could decrease processing costs from $2.96 to $2.56.
Additionally, processing costs presented in Exhibit 27 reflect a leftover paint collection
composition of 80 percent latex to 20 percent oil-based. It is believed that oil-based paint could
be as high as 40 percent of leftover paint, thereby making the ratio 60:40. It is assumed that two
less staff would be required under this scenario to process the reduced proportion of latex paint
and the increased proportion of oil-based paint (since oil-based paint is simply consolidated for
fuels markets). Additionally, the disposal costs and supplies were adjusted to reflect higher
disposal of oil-based paint and lower supplies for processing latex. The resulting processing fee
is decreased from $2.56 (for bulk disposal) to $2.46 per gallon which decreases the system cost
from $8.59 to $8.09 per gallon. This in turn will decrease the net cost per gallon sold by one
cent for the low collection rate up to five cents for the high collection rate.
8-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Overall Sensitivity-Exhibit 31 summarizes the cost alternatives described above on the overall base cost to collect,
aggregate, transport, process, and administer a nationally-coordinated leftover paint management
system. Specific assumptions and calculations related to the sensitivity analysis are presented in
Appendix C.
EXHIBIT 31: ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM COSTS
ALTERNATIVES
SYSTEM ELEMENT
BASE COST
HIGH
LOW
Collection
$1.98
$2.37
$1.54
Aggregation
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
Transportation
$0.32
$0.32
$0.32
$4.28
$4.67
$3.84
Processing
$2.96
$2.96
$2.46
Administration
$1.35
$1.35
$0.70
$8.59
$8.98
$7.00
4.6%
-18.5%
Subtotal
TOTAL
PERCENT CHANGE
Reducing Costs
First looking at system costs, Exhibit 29 provides the breakdown of system costs by
infrastructure component. The following suggests how these costs could be reduced by the
design of the system:

Collection: Provide system incentives to minimize reliance on dedicated facilities and
maximized collection by using more existing curbside recycling programs and co-located
collection sites.

Aggregation: Negotiate national or large regional agreements with transportation
companies to get quantity discounts on shipping rates. Provide incentives for use of
backhaul transporters.

Transportation to Recycler: Negotiate national or large regional agreements with
transportation companies to get quantity discounts on shipping rates.

Processing: Assume that actual proportion of latex to oil-based ratios will be similar to
the current proportions collected now at HHW collections (34 to 44 percent oil-based)
gradually approaching 20 percent oil-based. This will reduce the need for new capacity
and new facilities as it is assumed that the latex recycling process is the limiting
8-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
throughput factor at recycling facilities. This will reduce processing operating costs as
well as capital expenditures over time.

Administration: This costs was based on a two state system (Oregon and Washington)
required to administer a product stewardship electronics recycling system. To ramp up to
a national system there would certainly be significant administrative cost savings.
Increasing Revenues
On the revenue side, the fundamental question is how much can recycled paint actually
command in the marketplace. This is highly variable depending on who you talk to and is
probably a moving target as just this year there is now a quality based recycled paint standard.
The only clear reality today is that there needs to be more market demand for recycled content
paint to support the system. Some believe that if there were a significant market demand for
paint at a reasonable average price point that there would be little resistance to the creation and
broad support for a nationally-coordinated leftover paint system. If, for instance, the average
retail price for recycled content paint were actually $20 per gallon and it were able to be
produced at wholesale for $5 per gallon, due to implementation of system cost savings, the
arguments against moving ahead would largely vanish.
Marketing Challenges and Opportunities
To increase the demand for recycled content paint has well known marketing challenges. These
challenges include:

Limits on the availability of certain high sheen paints,

Color matching processes are complicated by use of a more variable feedstock,

Availability of supply of colors and finishes may be limited,

Retailer may resist adding a new product line,

Prior experience with low-quality recycled content paint in the past need to be overcome,

Training sales force and providing incentives to push recycled paint may be resisted, and

Marketing a new product line will require start-up and ongoing resources.
Opportunities include:

Tapping the emerging green building market and access to LEED points,

Use newly adopted MPI/Greenseal paint quality standard to assuage paint quality issues
as well as fill the white/off-white market gap in the recycled paint market,

Creating a new brand and new profitable partnerships with customers, recyclers,
municipalities,

A national campaign that enhances the reputation of the paint industry and its partners as
environmentally conscientious, responsible, and responsive to customers needs to
manage leftover paint
8-9
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
A Future Possibility
To make an economically sustainable future for leftover paint management that avoids long-term
subsidies, an increased demand for recycled content paint must be created, and capital and
operating costs of the infrastructure must be minimized. The current condition of excess
recycled paint supply does not command sufficient revenues to pull paint through the system.
Increasing demand for recycled paint would tend to eliminate the excess supply and command
revenues sufficient to cover the all the needs of the national system as well as provide reasonable
profits.
The work of other PPSI projects in and outside of the MOU are setting the stage to increase the
demand for recycled paint. These projects include: establishment of public entity purchasing
practices, mainstreaming green building practices to use recycled content paint (using the new
MPI/Greenseal standard), and creating market demand in the private sector. All of these efforts
help to create a situation that is ripe for leveraging change in demand and revenue.
8-10
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
APPENDIX A
CURBSIDE AND DOOR-TO-DOOR COLLECTION
Appendix A
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
APPENDIX A
CURBSIDE AND DOOR-TO-DOOR COLLECTION
The consultant team collected a limited amount of information about existing curbside and doorto-door collection programs. The PSI Consultant continued the search for unique collection
methods by sending e-mails out on various waste and HHW list serves and concluded that the
only known alternative collection methods in existence are the curbside collection programs in
Marion County, Oregon and Alameda County, California. Further information was collected
from these programs and this Appendix presents that information.
Curbside Collection
Marion County, Oregon
Marion County, Oregon, operates a curbside recycling program for latex paint that they deem
successful. Recycling customers are allowed to place two cans of latex paint out with their
regular recycling each week. Private haulers pick up the latex along with the regular recycling,
and store it at the transfer station. Approximately twice a month, crews from the Marion County
Juvenile Department’s Alternative Programs and a supervisor pick up the collected paint from
the transfer stations, and empty buckets from local food processors. The crews clean the
buckets, screen the paint, and mix it in a large vat, producing a grey or sometimes butterscotch
paint. The paint is offered free on a first-come, first served basis at the Salem-Keizer Recycling
and Transfer Station, although paint for graffiti abatement and community-service projects can
be reserved (Marion County Public Works, 2005a).
In 2004, the Marion County program recycled 15,228 gallons, or 164,440 pounds, of latex paint.
Haulers collected 260,260 pounds of latex paint, including unusable paint, garbage erroneously
mixed in with the paint, and empty cans (Marion County Public Works, 2005b). The population
of Marion County is approximately 290,000 (Payne, 2005). The table below combines these
figures to yield effectiveness rates for the Marion County program.
Table 1: Collection Quantities of Marion County, OR,
Curbside Collection Program, 2004
Paint
Total
Per Person
Gallons Recycled
15,228
0.05
Pounds Recycled
164,440
0.57
Pounds Collected
260,260
0.90
The Marion County program’s per-person collection rates compare favorably with that of the
Low scenario developed for this project.
Marion County has been able to run this program at a relatively low cost. The County has not
tracked the cost of actual collection of the paint, and incurred no equipment costs for collection
because the recycling trucks already had separate compartments that could be used for paint.
A-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Alameda County, California
The Castro Valley Sanitation District in Alameda County, California serves nearly 15,000 singlefamily households with weekly collection of garbage and recyclables in a split truck that is
operated by a contracted hauler, Waste Management. Residents set out paint next to their bins,
and the haulers place the paint cans in the cab of the truck. Back at the Davis Street Transfer
station, the hauler decants the collected paint into 55-gallon drums that are delivered to a
relatively small local paint manufacturer, Stiles Paint in Hayward, California. The hauler
decants the collected paint into 55-gallon drums, which are then picked up by Stiles Paint.
Neither Castro Valley Sanitation District nor the hauler has performed any cost analysis of the
paint recycling service – rather, the service was simply built-in to the original franchise
agreement. However, the hauler was able to provide some limited information about costs of
processing the paint. Stiles Paint charges $95 per trip to pick up drums of paint, regardless of the
number of drums collected at each trip. Waste Management then has the opportunity to buy 5gallon buckets of re-processed paint from Stiles at $13.75 each.
The following table displays the number of latex paint cans collected in the previous several
years.
Table 2: Collection Quantities of Castro Valley Sanitation District
Curbside Paint Recycling, 1997-2005
56
Year
Cans of Latex Paint56
Estimated Cans Per
Household
1997
2093
0.14
1998
1632
0.11
1999
920
0.06
2000
2574
0.17
2001
2731
0.18
2002
1934
0.13
2003
1423
0.09
2004
953
0.06
2005
663
0.04
Yearly average
1658
0.11
These figures are approximate and were taken from a poor quality fax.
A-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Door-to-Door Collection
Several jurisdictions throughout the country offer door-to-door collection of HHW (including
paint) on an on-call basis for customers that require extra assistance and service, such as the
elderly or disabled. One company that provides these services in several states is Curbside, Inc.
Curbside, Inc. is a private company that formed in 1995 to collect used motor oil in California.
In the past ten years, the company has expanded its programs to collect all types of household
hazardous waste, including electronic waste, and now has programs in Colorado, Illinois, Iowa,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas, in addition to those in California. Although their name is
Curbside, their program is door-to-door collection: customers phone them to set up a pick-up
appointment. Typically, local governments hire them to implement pick-up programs in their
jurisdictions.
Latex paint is Curbside’s largest waste stream. On average, Curbside picks up 100 pounds of
waste per household, and charges about $105 per household per pick-up. The average household
disposes of 15 gallons of paint. Curbside also collects between 500 and 1,000 gallons of paint
weekly from hardware stores in San Francisco.
The company brings the paint to a warehouse and packs it for shipping to its facility in Denver,
Colorado. Once there, the paint is crushed, filtered twice, and turned into a sprayable paint used
for foundation coatings. It is not separated by color. They have additional capacity at their
plant, but have been looking for other ways to handle paint (Anderson, 2005). However, they are
not a processor on the same scale of the major processors surveyed in this study or included on
the maps.
A-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
APPENDIX B
FURTHER DETAIL ON PROCESSOR SURVEY
AND FACILITIES NEEDED
Appendix B
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
APPENDIX B
FURTHER DETAIL ON PROCESSOR SURVEY AND FACILITIES NEEDED
To estimate existing processing capacity and understand how and where new processing
facilities may be needed, our team:

Conducted a survey of existing processing facilities. Notes from each interview can be
found below.

Used results of these interviews, as well as paint collection estimates, to estimate how
many and where new facilities may be needed.

Following is a discussion of the methodology and results for estimating where new
processing facilities would be needed.

Processing Facility Calculations

To estimate how many processing facilities were needed, our team:

Estimated how much paint would be collected in each state under the low, medium,
high, and extra high scenarios. We reduced estimates by 20% to account for paint
reused via swap at the point of collection.

Used the survey of existing processors to estimate current processing capacity.

Aggregated states into regions based on proximity to existing processors and paint
quantities projected to be collected.

Calculated how much new, incremental capacity would be needed in each region by
subtracting projected collection from existing capacity.

Assigned facilities at the rate of one facility per each 6,000,000 gallons of needed
capacity.
The following table details these calculations.
B-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
TABLE 3. PROCESSING FACILITY CALCULATIONS
Processor Analysis
Assumptions:
State
Population
Leftover Paint Collected (minus 20% for Reuse Programs)
Low
Medium
High
Ex High
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.23
Existing
Capacity
Capacity Difference and Facilities Needed
Low Medium
High
Ex High
California (2)
Arizona
Nevada
Utah
Colorado
WEST
35,893,799
5,743,834
2,334,771
2,389,039
4,601,403
50,962,846
1,722,902
275,704
112,069
114,674
220,867
2,446,217
3,158,654
505,457
205,460
210,235
404,923
4,484,730
4,881,557
781,161
317,529
324,909
625,791
6,930,947
6,604,459
1,056,865
429,598
439,583
846,658
9,377,164
9,500,000
None
None
None
None
Washington
Oregon (3)
Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
NORTHWEST
6,203,788
3,594,586
1,393,262
926,865
506,529
12,625,030
297,782
172,540
66,877
44,490
24,313
606,001
545,933
316,324
122,607
81,564
44,575
1,111,003
843,715
488,864
189,484
126,054
68,888
1,717,004
1,141,497
661,404
256,360
170,543
93,201
2,323,006
1,600,000
None
None
117,004
0-1
723,006
0-1
Minnesota (4)
North Dakota
Nebraska
South Dakota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio*
Kentucky
West Virginia
MIDWEST
5,100,958
634,366
1,747,214
770,883
2,954,451
5,509,026
10,112,620
12,713,634
6,237,569
11,459,011
4,145,922
1,815,354
63,201,008
244,846
30,450
83,866
37,002
141,814
264,433
485,406
610,254
299,403
550,033
199,004
87,137
3,033,648
448,884
55,824
153,755
67,838
259,992
484,794
889,911
1,118,800
548,906
1,008,393
364,841
159,751
5,561,689
693,730
86,274
237,621
104,840
401,805
749,228
1,375,316
1,729,054
848,309
1,558,425
563,845
246,888
8,595,337
938,576
116,723
321,487
141,842
543,619
1,013,661
1,860,722
2,339,309
1,147,713
2,108,458
762,850
334,025
11,628,985
9,000,000
None
None
None
2,628,985
1-3
New York (6)
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Connecticut
NORTHEAST
19,227,088
1,317,253
1,299,500
621,394
3,503,604
25,968,839
922,900
63,228
62,376
29,827
168,173
1,246,504
1,691,984
115,918
114,356
54,683
308,317
2,285,258
2,614,884
179,146
176,732
84,510
476,490
3,531,762
3,537,784
242,375
239,108
114,336
644,663
4,778,266
3,000,000
None
None
531,762
0-1
1,778,266
1-2
Texas
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Kansas
Louisiana
SOUTH
22,490,022
1,903,289
3,523,553
2,752,629
2,735,502
4,515,770
37,920,765
1,079,521
91,358
169,131
132,126
131,304
216,757
1,820,197
1,979,122
167,489
310,073
242,231
240,724
397,388
3,337,027
3,058,643
258,847
479,203
374,358
372,028
614,145
5,157,224
4,138,164
350,205
648,334
506,484
503,332
830,902
6,977,421
-
1,820,197
1-2
3,337,027
1-4
5,157,224
1-6
6,977,421
2-7
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
Tennessee
Missouri
North Carolina
SOUTHEAST
4,530,182
17,397,161
8,829,383
2,902,966
4,198,068
5,900,962
5,754,618
8,541,221
58,054,561
217,449
835,064
423,810
139,342
201,507
283,246
276,222
409,979
2,786,619
398,656
1,530,950
776,986
255,461
369,430
519,285
506,406
751,627
5,108,801
616,105
2,366,014
1,200,796
394,803
570,937
802,531
782,628
1,161,606
7,895,420
833,553
3,201,078
1,624,606
534,146
772,445
1,085,777
1,058,850
1,571,585
10,682,039
-
2,786,619
1-3
5,108,801
1-6
7,895,420
2-8
10,682,039
2-11
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Virginia
EAST
830,364
553,523
5,558,058
6,416,505
8,698,879
12,406,292
1,080,632
7,459,827
43,004,080
39,857
26,569
266,787
307,992
417,546
595,502
51,870
358,072
2,064,196
73,072
48,710
489,109
564,652
765,501
1,091,754
95,096
656,465
3,784,359
112,930
75,279
755,896
872,645
1,183,048
1,687,256
146,966
1,014,536
5,848,555
152,787
101,848
1,022,683
1,180,637
1,600,594
2,282,758
198,836
1,372,608
7,912,751
-
2,064,196
1-3
3,784,359
1-4
5,848,555
1-6
7,912,751
2-8
(1) Alaska and Hawaii have been excluded from this analysis with under 200K gallons to process per year.
B-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Processor Survey Notes
Following are notes from interviews with the following processors:

Mark Kurschner, Product Care

Jim Quinn, Metro (Portland)

Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental

Fred Bauer, Amazon Environmental

Jerry Noel, Visions Recycling

George Portelance, Eco-Peinture

Walter LeClerc, Kelly Moore
Mark Kurschner, President, Product Care
May 31, 2005
Collection points-Product Care does have collection points. They subcontract with a depot system both at HHW
(called municipal sites) and a combination of community depots (both true community areas,
such as fire halls, etc., and also at bottle depots that are generated through bottle recycling
programs).
Forty percent are municipal clients; 60% are private.
The concentration of paint collected is in major urban areas (20% of the urban depots collect
more than half the paint).
All information at collection points is standardized so employees are consistent both in
communicating with consumer and in sorting paint. There is also a list of allowed and nonprogram items.
Consumers struggle with certain “rejected” items.
Liquid and aerosol are separated (into a special bin), and other forms of HHW (solvents, etc.) are
collected.
Other collection stats:
Collect 0.6-0.7 drums per bin (33-39 gallons)
Supply bins are 1 cubic yard, leakproof, etc.
B-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Aggregation/consolidation information-Product Care has four points: Okanagan, Vancouver, Prince George, and Surrey. Bins are
collected at each of the four major points and then consolidated in Surrey. Full loads and full
trailers are collected every time to save on transportation costs. Aggregation locations selected
in part by where transportation service vendors were located and in part based on population.
Revenue/cost information:
Pay both depot systems; subtract non-program materials from total amount paid.
Urban transportation costs of $10-15 per bin; rural approx $100 per bin.
Other information:
Currently Product Care is looking to grow its business to serve the whole province. They are
reviewing whether to continue to process in Surrey or to create a new bulk facility in another
location — basically, they will be looking at transportation costs over time versus capital
expenses on a new facility. According to Mark Kurschner, the process and Product Care
specifically are less efficient when not serving the entire province.
Product Care also runs a program in Nova Scotia where there was an existing depot system that
they had to use (similar to the bottle collection/ “private system” for the CA program).
Jim Quinn, Metro
May 31, 2005
Collection points:
Metro separates latex from other types of paint. There are four different collection points which
serve approximately 50,000 customers per year (2.5-3 gallons per customer = 150,000 gallons
collected):

Two permanent facilities in concentrated urban areas (80% of customers, or
approximately 40,000 people, come to the permanent locations).

A temporary event (what we call a “collection event”) is held every weekend -approximately 35 per year in major urban areas (serving approximately 10,000
customers).

Paint stores (nominal).

Business collection program (also nominal).
Additional collection is a growing number of county HHW programs who pay Metro to process
their collected paint. Pay a small fee (very competitive) and Metro’s highest recycle rate is an
additional benefit. This service piece is approximately 130K gallons of paint, nearly half their
processing total of 280K.
B-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Processing:

Currently process 280,000 gallons of paint

75% of paint intended for recycling goes into the final product

Created a stand-alone processing facility a few miles from the permanent collection sites

Outsource contractor to process unrecyclable latex paint (Metro used to handle this, but
began outsourcing it when they relocated their operations). Hardened latex is disposed in
trash dumpster.

In 1992, they had 30,000 gallons. In 1999, they created a new facility to process 99,000
gallons -- somewhere in between came the “tipping point” that persuaded them to
generate their own facility for processing.
Transportation:
The processing facility is 5 miles and 20 miles, respectively, from the two permanent sites
Temporary events are still within the metro area, with approximately 45 minutes maximum
driving time to the processing facility once it is collected. Costs include gas, repairs, etc.
(however, this number excludes labor, capital expense, and depreciation), and account for only
$12,000 of the annual budget of $884,000 (or just over 1%). Metro owns its transportation
trucks.
Recycled paint:
Notably, 74% of the revenue collected from Metro’s paint facility comes from the sale of
recycled paint. Metro produces, markets, and sells paint to the end user. They have invested
heavily in local marketing, etc. over the years in order to become well-known in the areas where
their recycled paint outlets sell. Their consumers are motivated by low price-point, not
“recycling” per se.
They do not reuse latex, but they do reuse a small amount of oil based. They give a fraction
away to well-vetted non-profit organizations.
The process and demand for white paint is a barrier to relationships with big retailers (Fred
Meyer), and the price point will be affected by the retail mark-up. This makes the paint only
marginally more attractive to buyers.
Hotz Environmental, Pamela McAuley
June 6, 2005
Collection points:
Hotz processes paint transported by contractors, and also collects paint using three methods:

Bids to collect from municipalities (dumps, etc.)
B-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative

Depots staffed by Hotz at landfills, works yards, etc.

Collection events through mobile units (approximately 1,500 cans per day—Saturday
collection events)
Aggregation points:
All aggregation events and points are driven by RFP—generally in urban areas but not
proactively determined by Hotz.
Processing:
All the paint is separated from other HHW products and “bulked” (aggregated) at one facility.
Hotz produces a half-million gallons of recycled paint per year. The factory works in three shifts
(but not all of them are for latex processing).
Supply will determine if they want to invest to create more capacity or to create a satellite
facility for additional capacity.
Costs:
Transportation is not included in every scenario (since all the U.S. suppliers contract out the
transportation).
The processing cost is $160 per cubic yard box (sells at under $5 per gallon).
Paint production:
Hotz does not sell to retailers in the U.S. because they are not willing to undercut their own
prices to sell recycled paint. They do sell paint to Asia.
Even with shipping costs, they still make a good margin.
Standard ratio of white/cream to other colors is okay with buyers since they can offer a wider
selection of colors and much higher quality.
They do sell to commercial clients (contractors building condos, etc.).
Reuse:
They offer a small reuse program, if the paint can be sorted on site (for example, at their depots)
and if it is a full, never used can.
Supply/demand factors:
Due to their international relationships and the high-quality of paint produced, Hotz has plenty of
demand for their recycled paints. The barrier to growth is actually the supply -- often
B-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
municipalities do not advertise collection events (for example) because they can not afford to
compensate Hotz to process all the paint received.
Amazon Environmental, Fred Bauer
June 6, 2005
Amazon Environmental processes only latex, waterborne substances (no oil, etc.). They have no
involvement in the collection portion of the recycling process. Major contractors (approximately
eight) deliver quart cans to their four facilities, where they roll off, separate, and bulk (aggregate)
the paint.
They have two facilities in Southern California (which does 50% of processing), one facility in
Minnesota, and one facility in Ohio. The location of the plants is based on supply of paint (or
the demand of the collectors, aggressive state plans, and industrial generators). The Ohio plant
predominantly has paint spray booths (for automobiles, for example), not HHW-driven.
At the facilities they direct the paint to coating (where it becomes retail paint) or to cement
additives.
Paint is sold directly to municipalities and contractors. Also do MTO for prisons and
municipalities, and have partnerships with retailers to do private labels (including Dunn
Edwards, a $400,000 company that carries two recycled colors).
The barrier is demand for final paint product -- it is a chore to develop a market for the paint.
Their key competitive advantage is that they take all types of paint. There is no sorting, sifting,
back-charging, etc. Sour paint goes to the cement additives process.
The cement additives portion is approximately 50% of their business. The paint goes into kilns
before it becomes concrete. They have three patents on their processes. The challenge in
growing this business is that each cement kiln customers (they serve about 80 in North America
alone) has a different process that must be adhered to; i.e., there is no uniformity in the process.
Jerry Noel, Visions Recycling
June 7, 2005
Visions Recycling sorts, bulks, distributes, and sells retail (but their customers are really
municipalities and commercial).
Collection:
The paint is collected by contractors and then delivered. Two counties deliver “loose pack”
(bulked in original cans/packaging). In 2004, they collected 3,000 tons; 65% goes back on the
market.
B-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Processing/product:
Visions bulks at one facility, and does not have trouble with “sour” paint for production. They
add virgin ingredients (blends, etc.). They have worked for several years on quality production
of recycled paint.
Cost:
The transportation cost is minimal either because it is contracted by the HHW sites or because it
is collected at facility (next to the processing facility).
The higher labor costs to produce a recycled product make margins tight, since the price of paint
to the consumer must be much cheaper.
Eco-Peinture, Georges Portelance
June 7, 2005
Eco-Peinture is involved in all phases of the program, from collection to retail. Éco-peinture is a
non-profit organization created by the paint industry in the province of Quebec to solve the
recycled paint problem—they built the program.
Collection:
Permanent collection at municipal HHW sites—approx 285 perm sites both on the fringe of
urban populations and in eco centers. Generates 22% of collection.
Community events—1-2x per year at roughly 200 sites generates approximately 22% of
collection.
Retail locations—300 paint stores—collect approx 39%.
Montreal is its own category at 15%.
Processing/product:
Sort on site from original container—one processing facility. Produce 16 different colors, good
quality.
Running at approx 70% capacity—could increase to 100% with an extra shift but currently the
supply of paint and the demand for product sold is in balance
Recycled paint represents less than 1% of paint sold in the province of Québec
Cost:
Transportation cost averages $0.25 per kilo (average mileage model works). There is no
population formula to determine the locations -- the municipalities decide to have collection
events and, in many cases, contract for the transportation (which Eco-Peinture pays for)
B-8
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Revenue:
Program is run at no cost to suppliers—consumer of paint at retail location pays a $0.25
“processing fee” every time they buy a can of paint.
End product sold through 3-4 different retailers
Price point to consumer is slightly less—depends on retail mark-up
Also sell to export market.
Province targets/ Eco assumptions:
The province estimates that 7% of all paint sold is unused. Eco captures 3.5% of the total paint
sold (or 50% of all unused paint). Province has given a target of 75% collection rate for the
coming years. In order to achieve this, Eco will raise awareness through marketing. They have a
market to sell the paint they produce (there is a demand for the final product) and they believe
that the collection points are sufficient.
There are no reuse opportunities.
Kelly Moore, Walter LeClerc
June 7, 2005
Kelly Moore sold 350,000 gallons of recycled paint in 2001 and were the largest volume recycler
at that time (primarily in California). The major differentiator is that, instead of bulking all
finishes and all colors, they separate them to maintain the integrity of color, texture, etc.
Collection:
They collect at retail facilities. They also have an on-site recycling center located with a
processing facility.
Processing/product:
They separate the paint to maintain the integrity of color, texture, etc.
The facility is running only at 5-10% capacity because there is no demand for the final recycled
paint product. They have over 300 color options.
They have a price point of approximately $7 per gallon versus $25 for virgin paint.
Transportation: Walter would use trucks on reverse routes to transport paint.
B-9
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
APPENDIX C
FURTHER DETAIL ON SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Appendix C
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - COLLECTION SYSTEM COST HIGHER
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$146,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$146,000,000
$5 per gallon
$108,500,000
$10 per gallon
$71,000,000
$15 per gallon
$33,500,000
$20 per gallon
-$4,000,000
32,000,000
$275,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$420,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$583,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$275,000,000
$203,750,000
$132,500,000
$61,250,000
-$10,000,000
$420,000,000
$311,250,000
$202,500,000
$93,750,000
-$15,000,000
$583,000,000
$429,250,000
$275,500,000
$121,750,000
-$32,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.23
$0.17
$0.11
$0.05
-$0.01
$0.43
$0.32
$0.21
$0.10
-$0.02
$0.66
$0.49
$0.32
$0.15
-$0.02
$0.92
$0.67
$0.43
$0.19
-$0.05
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
$0.01
$5 per gallon
$0.01
$10 per gallon
$0.01
$15 per gallon
$0.01
$20 per gallon
$0.01
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - COLLECTION SYSTEM COST LOWER
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$132,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$132,000,000
$5 per gallon
$94,500,000
$10 per gallon
$57,000,000
$15 per gallon
$19,500,000
$20 per gallon
-$18,000,000
32,000,000
$248,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$380,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$527,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$248,000,000
$176,750,000
$105,500,000
$34,250,000
-$37,000,000
$380,000,000
$271,250,000
$162,500,000
$53,750,000
-$55,000,000
$527,000,000
$373,250,000
$219,500,000
$65,750,000
-$88,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.21
$0.15
$0.09
$0.03
-$0.03
$0.39
$0.28
$0.17
$0.05
-$0.06
$0.60
$0.43
$0.26
$0.08
-$0.09
$0.83
$0.59
$0.34
$0.10
-$0.14
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
-$0.01
$5 per gallon
-$0.01
$10 per gallon
-$0.01
$15 per gallon
-$0.01
$20 per gallon
-$0.01
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$0.02
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-2
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - ADMIN COST LOWER
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$128,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$128,000,000
$5 per gallon
$90,500,000
$10 per gallon
$53,000,000
$15 per gallon
$15,500,000
$20 per gallon
-$22,000,000
32,000,000
$241,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$369,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$512,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$241,000,000
$169,750,000
$98,500,000
$27,250,000
-$44,000,000
$369,000,000
$260,250,000
$151,500,000
$42,750,000
-$66,000,000
$512,000,000
$358,250,000
$204,500,000
$50,750,000
-$103,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.20
$0.14
$0.08
$0.02
-$0.03
$0.38
$0.27
$0.15
$0.04
-$0.07
$0.58
$0.41
$0.24
$0.07
-$0.10
$0.80
$0.56
$0.32
$0.08
-$0.16
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
-$0.02
$5 per gallon
-$0.02
$10 per gallon
-$0.02
$15 per gallon
-$0.02
$20 per gallon
-$0.02
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-3
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
ANNUAL PROCESSING COSTS RELATED TO LATEX:OIL RATIO OF 60:40 AND DISPOSAL COSTS
Expense
Number
Labor
Paint Sorters
Processing Support (forklift, etc)
Oil-Based Paint Bulking
Product Production
Laboratory Technician
Facility Manager
Administrative Assistant
7
1.5
7
2
1
1
1
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$58,000
$95,000
$40,500
Operating Expenses
Supplies*
Annual Training
Utilities, Maintenance, Repairs
Laboratory Testing (Green Seal)
1
20.5
1
1
$180,000
$500
$100,000
$15,000
Damaged Goods
Wastewater Treatment
157.5
1
Pre-printed one-gallon cans
450,000
Oil-Based Paint Disposal
400,000
Unusable Latex Disposal
Used Plastic Pail Disposal
Facility Amortization
A
Unit Cost
Total Cost
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
per year
$283,500
$60,750
$283,500
$81,000
$58,000
$95,000
$40,500
per year
per employee
per year
per year
$180,000
$10,250
$100,000
$15,000
$0.88 per gallon
C
$50,000 per year
$50,000
D
$0.77 per gallon
E
$0.72 per gallon
$347,625
E
$132,000
1.00
$0.88 per gallon
C
$60,000 per year
1
F
$373,144 per year
150,000
$139
Total*
$288,000
$60,000
$373,144
$2,458,408
*
A
B
C
D
Supplies include drums, sorbent materials, and personal protective equipment
NPCA estimates 0.035 percent of processed paint will be damaged and require disposal.
Wally Kiccma, Hotz Environmental, personal communication 2006
Jim Quinn, personal communication 2006
Assumes 15% of paint sold in 1-gallon metal cans at a cost of $1.75 per gallon and
85% of paint sold in 5-gallon buckets at a cost of $0.60 per gallon.
E Scott Thomas, Sherwin Williams
F Assumes construction costs of $3.5 Million at 8% interest over 30 years.
C-4
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - PROCESSING COST LOWER
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$138,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$138,000,000
$5 per gallon
$100,500,000
$10 per gallon
$63,000,000
$15 per gallon
$25,500,000
$20 per gallon
-$12,000,000
32,000,000
$259,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$396,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$550,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$259,000,000
$187,750,000
$116,500,000
$45,250,000
-$26,000,000
$396,000,000
$287,250,000
$178,500,000
$69,750,000
-$39,000,000
$550,000,000
$396,250,000
$242,500,000
$88,750,000
-$65,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.22
$0.16
$0.10
$0.04
-$0.02
$0.41
$0.29
$0.18
$0.07
-$0.04
$0.62
$0.45
$0.28
$0.11
-$0.06
$0.86
$0.62
$0.38
$0.14
-$0.10
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
-$0.01
$5 per gallon
-$0.01
$10 per gallon
-$0.01
$15 per gallon
-$0.01
$20 per gallon
-$0.01
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.03
-$0.04
-$0.04
-$0.04
-$0.04
-$0.04
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-5
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - OVERALL LOW
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$130,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$130,000,000
$5 per gallon
$92,500,000
$10 per gallon
$55,000,000
$15 per gallon
$17,500,000
$20 per gallon
-$20,000,000
32,000,000
$245,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$375,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$520,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$245,000,000
$173,750,000
$102,500,000
$31,250,000
-$40,000,000
$375,000,000
$266,250,000
$157,500,000
$48,750,000
-$60,000,000
$520,000,000
$366,250,000
$212,500,000
$58,750,000
-$95,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.20
$0.15
$0.09
$0.03
-$0.03
$0.38
$0.27
$0.16
$0.05
-$0.06
$0.59
$0.42
$0.25
$0.08
-$0.09
$0.82
$0.57
$0.33
$0.09
-$0.15
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
-$0.03
$5 per gallon
-$0.03
$10 per gallon
-$0.03
$15 per gallon
-$0.03
$20 per gallon
-$0.03
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.05
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.07
-$0.10
-$0.10
-$0.10
-$0.10
-$0.10
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-6
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - OVERALL HIGH
FACTOR
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
EX HIGH
Gallons Collected
17,000,000
System Costs
$153,000,000
Latex Paint Gallons Consolidated
$10,000,000
Sale Price
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$50,000,000
$10 per gallon
$100,000,000
$15 per gallon
$150,000,000
$20 per gallon
$200,000,000
Marketing (25% of Revenue)
$0 per gallon
$0
$5 per gallon
$12,500,000
$10 per gallon
$25,000,000
$15 per gallon
$37,500,000
$20 per gallon
$50,000,000
Net Cost (System Costs - (Sale Price-Marketing))
$0 per gallon
$153,000,000
$5 per gallon
$115,500,000
$10 per gallon
$78,000,000
$15 per gallon
$40,500,000
$20 per gallon
$3,000,000
32,000,000
$287,000,000
$19,000,000
49,000,000
$440,000,000
$29,000,000
68,000,000
$611,000,000
$41,000,000
$0
$95,000,000
$190,000,000
$285,000,000
$380,000,000
$0
$145,000,000
$290,000,000
$435,000,000
$580,000,000
$0
$205,000,000
$410,000,000
$615,000,000
$820,000,000
$0
$23,750,000
$47,500,000
$71,250,000
$95,000,000
$0
$36,250,000
$72,500,000
$108,750,000
$145,000,000
$0
$51,250,000
$102,500,000
$153,750,000
$205,000,000
$287,000,000
$215,750,000
$144,500,000
$73,250,000
$2,000,000
$440,000,000
$331,250,000
$222,500,000
$113,750,000
$5,000,000
$611,000,000
$457,250,000
$303,500,000
$149,750,000
-$4,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
637,000,000
$0.24
$0.18
$0.12
$0.06
$0.00
$0.45
$0.34
$0.23
$0.11
$0.00
$0.69
$0.52
$0.35
$0.18
$0.01
$0.96
$0.72
$0.48
$0.24
-$0.01
Difference in Virgin Paint Gallons Sold from Base Model
$0 per gallon
$0.01
$5 per gallon
$0.01
$10 per gallon
$0.01
$15 per gallon
$0.01
$20 per gallon
$0.01
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.03
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
$0.04
Virgin Paint Gallons Sold
Cost per Gallon Sold
$0 per gallon
$5 per gallon
$10 per gallon
$15 per gallon
$20 per gallon
C-7
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
REFERENCES
References
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, Patrick, 2005. Personal communication to Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.,
June 3, 2005.
Bailey, Curt (CB Coating Consulting and Inspection, Inc.). Personal communication.
Elman, Barry, 2005. Personal communication to the Infrastructure Workgroup, SCS Engineers,
and Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., May 27, 2005.
Eureka Recycling, 2002. “Downstream of Single Stream,” Resource Recycling, 2002
(November): pp. 24-28.
Gallagher, Glenn (California Integrated Waste Management Board). Personal communication.
Holliday, Jen (Chittenden Solid Waste District in Vermont). Personal communication.
Infrastructure Workgroup, 2005. Personal communication to SCS Engineers and Cascadia
Consulting Group, Inc., May 25, 2005.
Infrastructure Workgroup, National Paint Infrastructure Collection System Modeling White
Paper. Unpublished report, available at
http://www.productstewardship.us/supportingdocs/CollecMdlsWtPaper41304.doc.
Jacobsen, Barbara (The Jacobsen Group, Seattle, WA). Personal communication.
Marion County Public Works, 2005a. Painting the Town Grey. Fact sheet. Received from
Bailey Payne, May 31, 2005.
Marion County Public Works, 2005b. Unpublished data. Received from Bailey Payne, May 31,
2005.
Nightingale, David. Personal communication. August 21, 2006.
Nightingale, David and Rachel Donnette, 2002. “Household Hazardous Waste,” in Handbook of
Solid Waste Management [McGraw-Hill: New York, 2002], pp 10.1-10.6.
NW Product Stewardship Council - Paint Advisory Group, 2004. Paint Age Study, presented in
Chicago, IL, September 20-21, 2004.
O’Donnell, Mike (Phillips Environmental). Personal communication.
Payne, Bailey, 2005. Personal communication to Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., May 31,
2005.
Philipp, Kelly, 1999. “The Economics of Collecting Recyclables,” Resource Recycling, 1999
(November): pp. 22-26.
References-1
Paint Product Stewardship Initiative
Portelance, Georges, 2005. Personal communication to the Infrastructure Workgroup, SCS
Engineers, and Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. May 27, 2005.
Product Stewardship Institute, 2004. Paint Product Stewardship: A Background Report for the
National Dialogue on Paint Product Stewardship.
http://www.productstewardship.us/prod_paint_nat_dia.html
PSI, 2005. The Collection and Recycling of Used Computers Using a Reverse Distribution
System, a Pilot Project with Staples, Inc., Final Report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, June 2005.
Quinn, Jim, 2005. Personal communication to Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. June 3, 2005.
Sound Resource Management Group, Green Solutions, and City of Tacoma, 2005. Economic
and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State of
Washington. Available from Bill Smith, City of Tacoma, bsmith@ci.tacoma.wa.us.
Stevens, Barbara, 1994. “Recycling Collection Costs By the Numbers: a National Survey,”
Resource Recycling, 1994a (September): pp. 53-59.
Talbot, Jim (City of Seattle). Personal communication.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. Report on Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities for
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes. Accessed June 5, 2005. Available at
http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/pubs/tsdf/tsdf.html.
USEPA. “Multifamily Recycling: A National Study,” EPA530-R-01-018.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2005. Request for Proposals: Modeling the Development
of a Leftover Paint Management System. 30700-17214WR, Attachment A.
References-2