Infrastructure Group Members

1. Infrastructure Group Members • Heidi Sanborn, PSI – Facilitator • Dave Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council • Mike Nechvatal, IL Environmental Protection Agency • Jim Quinn, Metro Regional Government, OR • Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association • Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental • Pierre Landry, Paint Recycling Company • Jim Hickman, NC DENR • Alison Keane, NPCA • Susan Peterson, ICI Canada • Bill Sierks, MOEA • Tim Gormley and Anne Reichman, Earth911 • Marv Goodman, NCPD

2. Collection Infrastructure and Reuse GroupsPrevious Achievements • Collection Infrastructure Group • Volume of leftover paint that needs to be managed – 5% of sales or higher • Cost: $7-8/liquid gallon • Existing infrastructure: good start but not adequate • Developed draft BMP for managing leftover paint from households

3. Collection Infrastructure and Reuse GroupsPrevious Achievements • Reuse Group • Identified existing reuse programs • Developed reuse case studies – presented at Sacramento meeting • Site visits in Sacramento

4. Goals of Infrastructure Group • Develop effective collection system model • Develop a Paint Reuse Primer on how to implement a paint reuse center • Network existing reuse databases • Finalize leftover paint BMPs

5. Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models • Initial modeling outlined in white paper: “National Paint Infrastructure Collection System Modeling” (see PSI website) • Model to determine collection infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. • Parameters for efficient collection. • Options for collection entities. • What makes programs successful.

6. Key Issues to Resolve to Finish Collection System Model • Key Issue #1: Determine age of paint collected (quality, chemistry) (NWPSC) • Key Issue #2: Better quantify amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA) • Key Issue #3: Understand how much paint collected can be reused or recycled. • Key Issue #4: Determine cost of required infrastructure.

7. Key Issue #1: Determine Age of Paint Collected • Paint Age Study Performed by NW Product Stewardship Council - Paint Advisory Group • Study underway, results in 6-7 weeks. • Batch code on paint can label identifies age of paint. • Initial survey of can data performed to ID manufacturer and batch code from 169 cans.

8. Key Issue #1: Determine Age of Paint Collected • US EPA (Region 10) batch code data set helpful but incomplete, less than half of 23 listed manufacturers were in the sample of 169 cans. • Called other top brands to supplement EPA info. • Many batch codes use only single-digit year codes (can’t necessarily tell 1994 from 2004 or 1984)

9. Paint Age Study – Initial Survey Results • Of 169 cans --> 57% latex, 43% oil based • 53 manufacturers, 62% of cans from top 11 brands • 42% of cans unusable for survey data • 15%: No codes found on cans • 27%: Codes unreadable, or obscured (painted over) • Codes recorded were often product (SKU) codes instead of batch codes • Only 26% of cans had double-digit or single-letter coding for accurate dating – 9 manufacturers.

10. SKU vs. Batch Codes

11. Obscured or Partially Obscured Batch Code Examples Obscured Code

12. Batch Codes with “good” date info.

13. Batch Code with insufficient date info.

14. Age of Paint Study – Next Steps • Limit next study to cans from the 26% (9 manufacturers) that have sufficient year batch code information for accurate dating. • King County WA to perform two more sampling events in next week using a “cheat sheet” listing manufacturers of interest (26%), their batch code format, and likely batch code location on the can • Results from surveys will determine if there is reasonable data to estimate the age of paint.

15. Age of Paint Study – Next Steps • If King County survey successful, Oregon and Washington local programs will provide paint age data for region. • Survey should provide an estimated regional profile for age of leftover paint in the northwest. • There might be differences in the type and/or quality of leftover paint in other regions. Not sure if they would be significant. Duplication of NW study in other regions may be prudent, worth discussing.

16. Key Issue #2: Better quantify amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed • Study by EPA’s Sector Strategies Program – report in draft form • Study method: Refining previous PSI estimate by adding paint collected at HHW programs to paint disposed of in solid waste (from state waste characterization studies) • PSI Initial Estimate of Leftover Paint Generation: • 5% of sales, not including painting contractors, retailers

17. Preliminary Results of EPA Study • CA: Amt collected or disposed = 14 - 16% of sales • WA: Amt collected or disposed = 21 - 22% of sales • Based on CA/WA data, national projection of paint available for collection 87 - 136 million gallons/year • Still compiling data from other states. • Yet to determine possible estimation errors (e.g., statistical variability, weight of cans, spoiled paint, dried paint).

18. Key Issue #3: Understand how much paint collected can be reused or recycled. • This has not yet been written up, but there is good data from various local and regional programs to provide a range or percent recyclable paint.

19. Key Issue #4: Determine cost of required infrastructure • This issue is delayed due to the need to examine the paint age and quantity issues before this can be addressed. This would be a place the infrastructure group could focus on next.

20. Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps • Continue NW regional paint aging study, other regions might duplicate study method if needed. • Establish age of leftover paint profile and how much can be reused or recycled. • Determine the amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA Study+) • Households • Painting contractors • Retailers (?) • Manufacturers (?)

21. Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps • Determine infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. • Determine cost of providing infrastructure. • Refine model to collect leftover paint most efficiently (expand white paper or follow-on paper).

22. Goal 2: Paint Reuse Primer On How to Implement a Paint Reuse Center • Good sources of information on reuse centers • All have slightly different focus • Municipal vs. Business/non-profit • Paint vs. Other Building Products • Exchange vs. Consolidation/recycling • All need to be updated and made available to interested parties

23. Goal 3: Network Existing Reuse Databases • Earth 911 (www.Earth911.org/1-800-CLEANUP) is matching/integrating ReDO database of 370 reuse locations into existing Earth 911 database. • Earth 911 looking for new paint locations/programs/sources and updating HHW/paint-related listings as part of Earth 911’s daily updates.

24. Next Steps for Reuse • Determine how to develop Paint Reuse Primer. • Update existing reports. • Build on existing reports and tie together with Primer. • Key steps to develop Paint Reuse Primer. • Ensure all reuse materials obtained. • Determine existing reuse infrastructure: PSI letter asking for Earth 911 to be updated (see handout). • Make reuse resources available.

25. Goal 4: Finalize Leftover Paint Best Management Practices • BMP for Consumers completed and turned over to Education Group  presentation covered • Infrastructure group yet to determine need to develop separate BMPs for contractors.

26. Your Thoughts on Next Steps

27. Goal 1: Develop Effective Collection System Models – Next Steps • Determine the amount of leftover paint that needs to be managed (EPA Study+) • Determine infrastructure needed to manage leftover paint generated. • Determine cost of providing infrastructure. • Refine model to collect leftover paint most efficiently (expand white paper).

28. Goals 2 and 3: Reuse – Next Steps • Determine how to develop Paint Reuse Primer. • Update existing reports. • Build on existing reports and tie together with Primer. • Make reuse resources available.

29. Goal 4: Leftover Paint Best Management Practices – Next Steps • Develop separate BMP for contractors.