Lifecycle Workgroup September 26-27, 2005 Portland OR – Paint Dialogue.

PSI Paint Dialogue Sept. 26-27, 2005

2

Lifecycle Group Members• Heidi Sanborn, PSI – Facilitator• Scott Cassel, PSI• Dave Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship

Council• Alison Keane, NPCA• Dave Darling, NPCA – Lead • David Allaway, OR Dept. of Environmental Quality • Allen Stegman, Valspar Corporation• Harry Finkbone, ICI Paints • Robert Wendoll, Dunn-Edwards • Barry Elman, EPA• Bill Sierks – MN Office of Environmental Assistance• Bob Boughton – California DTSC• Irene Gleason, FL Department of Environmental Protection • Leslie Wilson, MN Solid Waste Mgt Coordinating Board


3

Lifecycle Balance of Costs and Benefits for Managing Leftover Paint

#11• This project is a study to determine and evaluate

scientifically the environmental costs and benefits of various options for managing leftover paint. The project will identify and quantify the relative socioeconomic lifecycle costs and benefits of leftover paint management, including human, natural, and economic resource use. This project will seek to determine the net balance lifecycle benefit to society from the various management options, ranging from simple drying/solid waste disposal to reuse and recycling.

• Total Cost: $275,920 Funded: $246,560 (NPCA)


4

Change in Work Plan

Original Work Plan• LCA Project Scoping

• LCA Contractor Selection

• LCA Project Implementation

Revised Work Plan• Preliminary Project

Scoping• LCA and CBA Contractor

Selection for Scoping • LCA and CBA Scoping• LCA and CBA Contractor

Selection (another RFP?)• LCA and CBA Project

Implementation


5

Project Accomplishments to Date

• Held 6 workgroup conference calls• Draft LCA and CBA Scopes of Work are out for

workgroup review• Final scoping meeting on Wednesday, September

28th


6

Change in Paint Management Scenarios

Original Scenarios

1. Dry and dispose by consumers and at central facility

2. Reuse

3. Recycling into paint

4. Recycling into other products

Revised Scenarios1. Consumer-based Scenario

(Low Cost)– Reuse method– Dry and dispose method

2. Collection-based Scenario (Higher Cost)– Reuse method– Recycle into consolidated

paint method– Recycle into reprocessed

paint method– Dry and dispose method


7

Other LCA/CBA Scoping Decisions

• How do we account for paint mis-management?– Reason: measure benefits from status quo to

any of the other paint management methods– Issues:

– No current data we are aware of– Additional cost of including in this study

– What do we do next?• The scoping will include Latex paint only and

exclude oil-based paint


8

LCA/CBA Scoping Decisions

• The Critical Review will be undertaken by hiring an independent external peer review expert.

• The LCA/CBA will quantify leftover paint using volume (gallons) to compare the LCA results (e.g., the Functional Unit).

• The TRACI methodology and additional impact methodologies will be used as necessary to specifically address mineral extraction for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).


9

LCA/CBA Scoping Decisions (continued)

• For data availability, use and quality, the following three points apply:– Studying paint that is currently produced and on the market.

BEES data (which is currently being updated in conjunction with NPCA) is recommended to represent the production of latex virgin and recycled paint.

– For other materials and energy use, data from the US LCI database will be used wherever possible; otherwise use other available LCI data that has been evaluated and determined to be of similar quality.

– Collect data from paint recycling facilities and other operations in the value chain to assure that the reliability of the study is not compromised by making inaccurate assumptions about paint recovery/reprocessing.


10

LCA/CBA Scoping Decisions (continued)

• For any problems encountered while conducting the LCA, the practitioner must evaluate the potential effect on results (e.g., if data on a specific material is unavailable, what is the potential significance of using surrogate data), notify the Workgroup within a reasonable period of time, and clearly document any assumptions made and how the problem was handled.

• The Workgroup agreed (except for one – we are still working to get consensus) that the environmental burdens of making virgin paint are left with the virgin paint; therefore, the leftover paint carries no environmental burdens.

• Conflict resolution


11

Budget/Facilitation Issues

• PSI’s budget was developed to implement original scope– Budget: $25,920 for 12 conference calls– Spent to date: $21,330

– Held 6 conference calls – Extra research on LCA and CBA firms– Developed 2 RFPs and proposal reviews– Managing 2 contractors– Numerous workgroup e-mails and other calls

• Options for moving forward with PSI:– Cut back PSI role – Use some funds from project implementation to

continue PSI role


12

Budget/Facilitation Issues

• Options for cutting back PSI role

– NPCA facilitation of Project #11 in the future (requested by NPCA)

• Options for moving forward on LCA and CBA

– Hire current contractors (no RFP)

– One contractor for LCA and CBA

– Two contractors for LCA and CBA

– Develop RFP for LCA and CBA project implementation and hire two contractors

• What happens if LCA/CBA costs are beyond project budget?


13

Next Steps….

• Finalize LCA and CBA Scopes of Work • Hire current contractor(s) or solicit RFPs

Lifecycle Workgroup September 26-27, 2005 Portland OR – Paint Dialogue.

Documents

Transcript of Lifecycle Workgroup September 26-27, 2005 Portland OR – Paint Dialogue.