Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina –...
-
Upload
gertrude-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
4
Transcript of Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is Not Working Charlotte, North Carolina –...
Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is
Not Working
Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006Government Perspective
2
State & Local Government
Paint Collection Systems, success & failure: four government perspectives
California – Glenn Gallagher Iowa – Theresa Stiner Ramsey County, Minnesota – Leslie
Wilson Chittenden Solid Waste District, Vermont -
Jen Holliday
3
Funding & Infrastructure
Successful Leftover Paint Collection & Management hinge on two factors:
Infrastructure Funding
4
Paint/HHW Collection in U.S.
Ahead of Curve HHW Programs (CA, FL, MN, WA) – 22% of pop.
Some HHW Programs (AK, IA, KS, MO, NC, NJ, OR, TX, VT) – 18% of pop.
Less than Average HHW program development (All Other States) - 60% pop.
5
Permanent HHW Collection Programs
Ave Pop / Program
Color
< 150K Blue 150- 300 Green 300 - 450 Yellow 450-600 Red 600 – 750 Purple >750 White No sites Black
6
Leftover Paint Impact to California Local Government
California Government Perspective
7
Current Funding Mechanisms in CA
Solid Waste Tipping Fee/Surcharge Utility Fee add-on Parcel Fees All paint and HHW collection fees are
levied and used at the local level
8
Collection & Cost in California
Paint Collection from Households since 1984 (mature program)
2.1 Million Gallons collected FY 04-05 Cost approximately $8/gallon to Local
Government (no $$ from state)
9
Leftover Paint as % of all HHWHHW Collection in CA by Material - FY 04-05
Latex Paint19%
Oil Base Paint16%
All Others31%
Used Oil (has ARF)
11%E-Waste
(has ARF)23%
10
Leftover Paint Collection – 2000-2005
Paint Collection by HHW Programs in California
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05
Mil
lio
ns
of
Gal
lon
s
Latex
Oil
11
Proper Collection vs. Paint not Collected
(California)
28% proper collection using leftover rate of 10%
28%
72%
Collected
NotCollected
Chart shows all leftover paint (green=collected)
12
Participation Rate by Households
In California, approx. 5.5% of Households brought HHW to a facility or temporary event in FY 2004-2005
25% of population (mostly rural areas) have no place to take leftover paint
13
Barriers to Increased Collection
Funding: Funds often run out 2-3 months
before end of fiscal year – stop accepting paint
Infrastructure: Collection sites not available in most
rural areas (in California, 20 of 58 counties are rural)
14
CA – Results & Lessons Learned in 20 years
CA Program Mature Infrastructure is OK (not great) Proper collection even with an
established program is only 28% Collection & cost increases 9%
annually Funding for collection lags behind
infrastructure
Iowa Perspective
16
Iowa’s Collection Infrastructure
Of Iowa’s 99 counties; 49 have collection facilities 20 have collection events 30 have no means of collection
17
Current Funding Mechanisms in IowaState Support to RCCs from tonnage fees,
FY05 $.21 per pound of hazardous material collected (latex not included)
Grants to establish RCCsLocal Retained tonnage fee and tipping fee. Charge to CESQGs for disposal
18
Collection & funding in FY05 134,766 pounds oil based paint
State reimbursement of $.21/pound ($28,300), remainder born by local governments
246,488 pounds latex paint All cost by local government
19
Leftover Paint as % of all material collected by RCCs
Latex25%
Oil based paint10%
Hazardous material
11%
Used Oil25%
Electronics8%
Other21%
20
Proper Collection vs. Paint Not Collected - Iowa
18%
82%
Collected
NotCollected
18% proper collection if leftover rate is 10%
21
Disposition of collected paint
Reuse25%
MSW Landfill52%
Fuel Blending
23%
22
Participation rate by Households Of households with access to an
RCC, 2.7% brought HHM to a facility or collection event.
23% of the population does not have access to collection facility or collection event
23
Barriers to increased collection One-day collection for counties not
served by RCC program is ending. Grant funds for establishing new
facilities is decreasing by 66% Local governments afraid to make
the commitment to starting a collection facility
Minnesota Perspective
25
0
50
100
150
200
Ve
hic
les
(T
ho
us
an
ds
)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION (Vehicles in Thousands)
26
TYPES OF HHW COLLECTED
Lead Acid Batteries
4%
Latex Paint24%
Consumer Electronics
41%
Other15%
Flam. Solvents
3%
Motor Oil/Filters
13%
In 2005: Ave. quantity of HHW collected per vehicle = 76.14 lbs
(slightly higher than the 2004 average of 75.68 pounds)
Increase due to greater collection of e- waste and latex paint.
27
Annual Cost (Recycling portion only) : $650,000
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
Po
un
ds
(m
illio
ns
)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
LATEX PAINT COLLECTED
28
SWMCB Historical Perspective HHW education & collection
mandated in 1992 1988 MPCA Product Stewardship
Perspective
29
Barriers to Increased Paint Convenient locations Educating Consumers
30
Current Financing - Minnesota
Solid waste tax at landfills State grants Solid waste fees from property taxes Solid waste fees charged directly to
garbage haulers and based on garbage bills
Donations – very small amount
Vermont Perspective
32
Chittenden Solid Waste District Vermont Serving 57,600 households in Chittenden
County Mature 15 year program with mobile and
permanent component. 298 collection days in FY2006
15% households participate per year Cost of program in FY06 $564,399 Funded by Tip Fee on Trash In FY06, paint was 50% of the program’s
waste stream (20,300 gallons latex, 9,300 gallons of oil based paint)
33
Latex Paint Management
FY 06 Latex Paint Management
7,915 , 40%
5,824 , 29%
6,250 , 31%
Recycling Canada
Local Color
Waste
FY 06 Latex Paint Management Costs
$22,701 , 41%
$3,875 , 7%
$29,187 , 52%
Recycling Canada
Local Color
Waste
34
Paint Percentage of Material Managed & Disposal Cost
Disposal Costs for Paint
$-
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$25,000.00
$30,000.00
01 02 03 04 05 06
fiscal year
oil paint
latex paint
Paint as Percent of all Material Collected
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Fiscal Year
Latex Paint
Oil Paint
35
Annual Participation Compared to Volume of Paint Collected
Participation vs Paint Collected
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06
fiscal year
Parcticipation Paint Collected
36
Collection Program is Unsustainable
Percent Total Tip Fees Used for Collection Program
0%
5%
10%15%
20%
25%
99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Fiscal Year
37
Problems with the Current Collection System Funding growth is not keeping up
with program growth Paint volume increase is
disproportional to participation increase
All unwanted paint is not being collected
Need more markets for recycled paint
3838
Questions?Questions?