Infrastructure Group Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Heidi Sanborn, PSI – Facilitator
Scott Cassel, PSI
Dave Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council –Lead,
Infrastructure
Alison Keane, NPCA – Lead, Reuse
Dave Darling, NPCA
Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental
Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association
Jim Hickman, NC DENR
Susan Peterson, ICI Canada
Barry Elman, EPA
Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT
Theresa Stiner, IA DNR
Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture
Glen Gallagher, CIWMB
Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Services Corporation
Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California
Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting
Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA
Pandora Tuart, City of Federal Way, WA
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
2
Workgroup is Responsible for
Three Projects From MOU…
• Paint Reuse Guidance #3
• National Infrastructure Model #4
• Infrastructure Cost Analysis #5
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
3
National Infrastructure Model #4
• This project will take the results from other
projects completed, such as the Paint Reuse
Primer, and analyze them to determine the most
efficient infrastructure system. The project goal is
to develop a report, which includes a model on
how to establish a national infrastructure for paint
management that will efficiently and effectively
collect and manage leftover paint.
• Total Cost: $136,800
Total Raised: $96,290
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
4
Projects Connected to the
Development of the National
Infrastructure Model
•
•
•
•
•
Paint Reuse Primer
Leftover Paint Age Profile
Leftover Paint Quantity Study
Percentage of Recyclable Paint
Infrastructure Cost Analysis
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
5
Project Accomplishments to Date
• Developed bid and scope of work (1 month)
• Hired SCS Engineers to develop first draft (2
months to complete work)
• Held 7 workgroup conference calls
• First draft report on the “model” edited by the
Workgroup and is ready for the consultant to
finish upon availability of funds
• Funding short-fall to finish the Model is $40,510.
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
6
Key Issues in the Draft Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leftover paint quantities
Collection points needed
Transportation and aggregation
Processing facilities needed
Facility design recommendations
Preliminary cost information
Conclusions and next steps
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
7
Workgroup Review of Draft Report
• Needs much better documentation and explanation
behind the assumptions and conclusions
• Further exploration of alternatives to existing
collection system, such as curbside collection
• Needs to add discussion on back-hauling in the
transportation section
• In a very draft form with significant work left to
complete
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
8
Leftover Paint Quantities
• Paint collection = paint sales x collection rate
• Paint sales = 2.3 gal/person/yr
• Collection rate (based on 50% collection of leftover paint)
– Low: 2.5% of paint sales
– Medium: 5.0% of paint sales
– High: 7.5% of paint sales
– Extra High: 10.0% of paint sales
• Plan for an increase in collection – phases
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
9
Leftover Paint Quantities
Collection
Scenario
Low
Medium
High
Extra High
Gallons per
person
Existing
Program
Gallons per
person
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.23
Quebec
Portland Metro OR
British Columbia
Hennepin Cty MN
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.13
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
10
Collection Points Needed
•
•
•
Type
– Dedicated facilities
– Co-located drop-off points
Number of collection and aggregation points
Community type designations
1. Super-urban (very dense cities)
2. Urban/metro areas (most other cities)
3. Isolated cities and towns (10,000-50,000)
4. Very rural (remote, sparsely populated)
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
11
Approach to Estimate Number of
Collection Points Needed
• Service level approach – based on service at
existing collection programs (people per
collection point)
– Need convenience within geographic area
– Collection sites needed: 2,090
– Equal to 0.06 gallons/person (LOW)
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
12
Service Level Approach to Estimate
Number of Collection Points Needed
Community
type
Designation
Super-urban
Urban/Metro
Isolated Cities
Very Rural
Population
14 million
228 million
30 million
20 million
Collection Points Needed in US (based
on model program service levels)
140
650
1,300
N/A
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
13
Approach to Estimate Number of
Collection Points Needed
•
Retail model approach – based on paint distribution to
retailers
– Types of distribution establishments
– Retail outlets
– Home centers
– Discount/Dept. stores
– Hardware stores
– Other
– Number of distribution establishments: 36,773
– Collection sites needed: 12,000
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
14
Approach to Estimate Number of
Collection Points Needed
•
Collection point capacity approach
– Based on the amount of throughput to a
facility (contingent on space available)
– Reverse logic
– Not considered valid approach
– Collection sites needed: 5,000-10,000
• Incentive based approach – to encourage
collection at non-profits, private, public through
financial incentives
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
15
Recommendations: Collection Points
• Collection sites needed: 2,000
– Equal to 0.06 gallons/person (LOW)
• Collection sites needed: 5,000
– Equal to 0.17 gallons/person (HIGH)
• Collection sites needed: 8,000
– Ultimate convenience
• Existing collection sites in US
– 1,500+ (Earth 911 data)
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
16
Transportation and Aggregation
•
•
•
Assumption: each community type will need at least one
aggregation point  TOTAL: 934 aggregation points
Did not include backhauling in discussion
Next steps:
– Develop cost to aggregate and transport
– Ensure that all transportation types are evaluated
– Check assumption of one aggregation point per
community type
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
17
Processing Facilities
• Surveyed 7 of 9 PPSI paint processors
• All have extra capacity
• Additional capacity considerations:
– Population density (supply)
– Transportation costs (distance for supply to
travel)
– End-customer (distance for the final product to
travel)
• Primary barrier to adding new capacity: markets
• Paint processing facilities needed: 3-17
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
18
Facility Design Parameters Based on Paint
Management Hierarchy
•
•
•
•
20% of paint is reused through paint swaps
65% is recycled into new paint
8% downcycled into cement additive
7% disposed
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
19
Additional Facility Design Parameters
• Assumes facility accepts 1.5 million gal/yr
• Facility components:
– Paint sorting and processing
– Paint filtering and packaging
– Can crushing
– Lab area (missing in report)
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
20
Facility Costs
• Estimates 4.1 million per facility capital cost
• Estimates 1.1 million/yr operational costs
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
21
Infrastructure Cost Analysis #5
• This project will determine the cost to implement
the Infrastructure Cost Model over a 5-year period
on a national scale. The consultant will conduct a
detailed analysis of costs pertaining to collecting,
reusing, consolidating, transporting, recycling, and
disposing of leftover paint, as well as capital and
administrative costs.
• Cost $66,720
Total Raised: $0
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
22
Potential Project Overlap #6 and #11
• The infrastructure project has potential overlap on
costs with lifecycle project.
• Overlap of these projects has funding implications
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
23
Ongoing Research Being Tracked
•
•
•
•
New Hampshire/Paint Recycling Company Pilot
Chittenden VT/PRC pilot
NCPD projects
Florida collection pilot
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
24
New Hampshire
Exporting Post Consumer Paint for Recycling
• Project Manager is Melanie Wheeler of the State of NH Grant Program
• Objective is to determine economic and administrative feasibility of
collecting paint and exporting to Canada for recycling.
• Performance will be measured by comparing cost savings per gallon to
existing program which sends it to incineration.
• Project will be considered successful if the cost of export for recycling
is the same or less than the cost of incineration.
• Will be reviewed by Infrastructure Group for incorporation of any new
data into the Infrastructure Model.
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
25
New Hampshire
Pilot Project Results
•
•
•
•
•
Project completed fall of 2004
Total paint collected 2,094 gallons of paint
Cost to recycle $7,712.25* or $3.68 per gallon
Avoided cost to incinerate approx. $14,000 or $7.40/gal.
Savings of approx. $7,000 (50 percent)
• Positive results are in spite of barriers, including:
– 200 miles to transport
– Export rules between US and Canada
– *Includes transportation costs
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
26
Chittenden VT and Paint Recycling Company
Pilot Project
• Project Manager - Jen Holliday, Chittenden Solid
Waste District
• Objective - Collecting paint and shipping to Paint
Recycling Company for recycling.
• Goal - Testing to see if paint recycling is more
cost effective than disposal
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
27
Chittenden VT and Paint Recycling Company
Pilot Project
• FY 2004 and FY 2005 results
• Compared costs of landfilling to paint
consolidation into own product called “Local
Color” or export to Canadian paint recycler
• Shipped total of 9,811 gallons of paint
• Costs per gallon
– Landfill – Cost $2.63/gallon
– Export and Recycle – Cost $1.70/gallon
– Consolidate and Sell - PROFIT $0.79/gallon
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
28
Florida Pilot
•
•
•
•
Rural milk-run collections
Future project - has not received funding to date
Hope to implement late 2006/early 2007
Goal is to provide a $50,000 grant to fund “milkruns” where rural areas can have an outlet for
paint to be recycled and then to evaluate the
success of the project by comparing the cost to
collect and recycle paint against current
management methods.
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
29
National Council on Paint Disposition (NCPD)
Collection Project
• Project manager is NCPD, Marv Goodman
• Transportation and collection currently underway
• Other portions are being evaluated through Project
Engineers at Rutgers University for feasibility
• May need additional funding
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
30
Develop Infrastructure Model
Next Steps….
• Raise another $38,000 to complete the “model”
• Contract with consulting firm to make changes to
the report and finalize a recommended model to
collect leftover paint most efficiently (using white
paper, results from all other projects, and a
consultant to assist with mapping).
• Raise $66,720 to implement #5 to put a cost to the
recommended model depending on any overlap
with the Cost Benefit Analysis conducted in #11
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
31
Decisions
• How much money do we really need to finish
project #4/5?
• How do we raise money to finish this project?
• What happens if we don’t raise the money?
• What data do we need to start the discussions on
Oct. 1, 2006 regarding the development and
financing of the nationally coordinated paint
management system for leftover paint?
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
32
Guidance for Paint Reuse Programs
MOU Project #3
• The Primer will be a comprehensive manual on paint reuse
for states, municipalities, non-profit and/or other material
reuse organizations, and other businesses and consumers.
The goal of this project is to encourage HHW collection
programs to start and/or expand paint reuse opportunities
to maximize reuse and reduce paint management costs.
There will be a significant outreach component once the
Primer is completed.
• Total Cost: $49,360
Total Raised: $9,360*
* NPCA funded the drafting of the document, not the outreach portion of the
project
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
33
Work Accomplished to Date
• Two conference calls
• Completed a first draft of the document
• Changed the title from “Primer” to “Guidance
Manuel for Paint Reuse Programs”
• Updated three case studies and have more coming
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
34
Key Issues in the Guidance Manual
• Identifies the types of reuse programs as either
paint exchanges, donation/resale, or bulking
• Asks the reader to identify the goals of their program and
choose an infrastructure (perm/temp)
• Identifies federal, state, and some local regs. to consider
• Describes operational needs for facilities and staff
• Encourages a container management plan
• Encourages a marketing strategy
• Provides case studies and resources for further information
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
35
PPSI Feedback
• Is there any other information that should be included
in the document?
• Do you have any suggestions for additional casestudies?
• Do you have any suggestions for additional resources?
• Do you have any editing/formatting suggestions?
– Will be reformatted for appearance by NPCA communications staff
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
36
Next Steps….
• Incorporate feedback from PPSI into second draft
• Circulate second draft to PPSI for comments
• Circulate to HHW, PSI, SWANA and state waste
management list serves for review and feedback
• After public review and comment, finalize and
reformat for appearance
• Post on PSI, NPCA websites – link to Earth911
• Promotion of Manual
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
37
Decisions
• Is this document ready to send to the full PPSI for
review and comment?
• Do we need to develop and fund a pilot project as part
of the outreach component to test the effectiveness of
the document?
PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005
38