May 3-4, 2006 PPSI Meeting - Sarasota FL1 Infrastructure Workgroup Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting...

May 3-4, 2006 PPSI Meeting - Sarasota FL 1

Infrastructure Workgroup• Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting Group – Facilitator• Scott Cassel, PSI• Dave Nightingale, WA Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council – Lead, Infrastructure• Alison Keane, NPCA – Lead, Reuse• Dave Darling, NPCA• Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental • Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association• Susan Peterson, ICI Canada• Barry Elman, EPA• Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT• Theresa Stiner, IA DNR• Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture• Glenn Gallagher, CIWMB• Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Services Corporation• Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California• Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting• Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA• Pandora Touart, City of Federal Way, WA• Melanie Wheeler, NH DES


Infrastructure Workgroup Projects

1. Paint Reuse Guidance (#3)2. National Infrastructure Model (#4)3. Infrastructure Cost Analysis (#5)


Key Infrastructure Components

1. Paint Reuse Primer 2. Leftover Paint Age Profile3. Leftover Paint Quantity Study4. Percentage of Recyclable Paint5. Infrastructure Cost Analysis6. Connection to Lifecycle Assessment/Cost Benefit

Analysis


Project Timeline1. SCS Engineers completed first draft - June 20052. 4 workgroup calls since July 1, 20053. Gained additional funding after hiatus4. First draft report on the “model” edited by the

Workgroup and presented to SCS to finish5. PSI research on curbside collection of latex paint

forwarded to SCS about programs in Marion OR and Unincorporated Alameda County CA

6. Final report expected – September 2006


Key Issues in the Draft Report1. Leftover paint quantities2. Collection points needed3. Transportation and aggregation4. Processing facilities needed5. Facility design recommendations6. Preliminary cost information7. Conclusions and next steps


National Infrastructure Model (#4)Goal: Determine the most efficient leftover paint infrastructure

system.Method: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.

Include results from other projects, such as the Paint Reuse Manual.


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


Leftover Paint Quantities

EPA Revised Draft Report – end of May 2006?? Anything further to report? This section is on hold until EPA report

completed.


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)


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)– Most popular approach



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



Incentive based approach – to encourage collection at non-profits, private, public through financial incentives

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


Recommendations: Collection Points

Collection sites needed: 2,000o Equal to 0.06 gallons/person (LOW)

Collection sites needed: 5,000o Equal to 0.17 gallons/person (HIGH)

Collection sites needed: 8,000o Ultimate convenience

Existing collection sites in USo 1,500+ (Earth 911 data)


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


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


Facility Design Parameters Based on Paint Management Hierarchy

Should percentages be changed?

20% of paint is reused through paint swaps 65% is recycled into new paint 8% downcycled into cement additive 7% disposed


Curbside Paint CollectionMarion County, Oregon

Marion County OR has collected paint at curb since 2000 2004 – recycled 15,228 gallons 2005 – recycled 28,695 gallons Paint is put into “tubs” with other recyclables including oil,

batteries, glass, and automotive fluids Only 2 gallons of paint per collection “Tub” is collected bi-weekly


Hauler Fabricated “Belly Box”


Marion County, OregonCollection Truck – Front Rack - Unloading


PaintBack Crew Mixing Paint


Details of Curbside Collection in Marion County, Oregon

Don’t break-out costs for paint collection from other materials in the bin

Cost to retrofit truck $2,000 Cost to mix paint $0 – use juvenile detainee labor Use paint for municipal purposes and donate the rest to

the public Labor, equipment, advertising, cost of buckets per year

equates to $0.63 per gallon to manage!


Infrastructure Cost Analysis (#5)Goal: Determine the cost to implement the Infrastructure

Model over a 5-year period on a national scale.

Method: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.


Connection to LCA/CBA The infrastructure project can share data with

the lifecycle project where there is overlap. SCS and ERG conference call confirmed that

SCS can deliver data needed for the LCA project in time to complete the LCA/CBA by November.

Consultants confident that projects will work well together.


Types of Data to be Shared Collection Data

– Representative Transportation Distances• Consumer’s Home to HHW Facility• HHW Facility to Processing Facility• HHW Facility to Recycling Facility

– What Regions/Populations densities do these distances apply?

Facility Data– Operational Costs

• Utilities, Raw Materials, Labor– Construction Costs

• Equipment, permitting, land and building costs


Ongoing Research Being Tracked New Hampshire/Paint Recycling Company Pilot Chittenden County VT/ Paint Recycling

Company Pilot Florida milk-run collection pilot NCPD projects


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 (Paint Recycling Company) 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.


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


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


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


Florida Milk-run 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 “milk-runs”

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.


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


Questions 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?

Will the current Scope of Work ensure delivery of that data?


Infrastructure Workgroup• Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting Group – Facilitator• Scott Cassel, PSI• Dave Nightingale, WA Ecology & NW Prod. Stewardship Council – Lead, Infrastructure• Alison Keane, NPCA – Lead, Reuse• Dave Darling, NPCA• Pamela McAuley, Hotz Environmental • Mark Kurschner, Product Care Association• Susan Peterson, ICI Canada• Barry Elman, EPA• Jen Holliday, Chittenden County, VT• Theresa Stiner, IA DNR• Georges Portelance, Eco-Peinture• Glenn Gallagher, CIWMB• Mike O’Donnell, Phillips Services Corporation• Bruce Baggenstos, PDCA, California• Curtis Bailey, CB Consulting• Leslie Kline, Fresno County, CA• Pandora Touart, City of Federal Way, WA• Melanie Wheeler, NH DES


Overview – Reuse Guidance Manual1. Identifies types of reuse programs as either

paint exchanges, donation/resale, or bulking2. Asks reader to identify the goals of their program and

choose an infrastructure (permanent/temporary)3. Identifies federal, state, and local regs. to consider4. Describes operational needs for facilities and staff5. Encourages a container management plan6. Encourages a marketing strategy7. Provides case studies and resources for further

information


Reuse Guidance ManualGoal: Encourage HHW collection programs to start and/or

expand paint reuse opportunities to maximize reuse and reduce paint management costs.

Method:Develop guidance manual on paint reuse for states,

municipalities, non-profit and/or other material reuse organizations, and other businesses and consumers.

Conduct significant outreach once manual is completed.


Work Accomplished to Date Three conference calls. Completed reuse manual. Draft Final Report available for release. No funding remaining on project.


PPSI Feedback Is there any other information that should be

included in the document? Do you have any editing/formatting

suggestions? Do you have any suggestions for additional

resources?


Next Steps Circulate draft final 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 Post on PSI, NPCA websites – link to

Earth 911 Additional Promotion of Manual?


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?

If not, how do we evaluate the success of the manual? Is there an opportunity to tie this in with other educational

outreach? How do we get additional work done with no funding?

May 3-4, 2006 PPSI Meeting - Sarasota FL1 Infrastructure Workgroup Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting...

Documents

Transcript of May 3-4, 2006 PPSI Meeting - Sarasota FL1 Infrastructure Workgroup Heidi Sanborn, R3 Consulting...