PSI Paint Dialogue Markets Workgroup Report September 20-21, 2004 Chicago, Illinois

2 Team Members Heidi Sanborn, Facilitator PSI Robert Wendoll, Dunn-Edwards – Lead person, marketing plan Dave Darling, NPCA – Lead person, non-paint uses Lorraine Segala, Amazon Environmental Kathy Marsh, CIWMB Dan Burgoyne, CA DGS Wayne Gjerde, Office of Environmental Assistance, MN Walter LeClerc/Robert Stetson Kelly Moore Kenneth Hahn/ Susan Peterson, ICI North America Marv Goodman, National Council on Paint Disposition Irene Gleason, FL DEP Mark Lipton, Tremont Paints Jasen Loiselle, Paint Recycling Company Jim Quinn, Metro Regional Government, OR Heng Lim/Wally Kiczma, Hotz Environmental Bill Sierks, MOEA Pierre Landry/Jasen Loiselle, Paint Recycling Company Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9 Priscilla Hayes, Rutgers University

3 Recommended Projects Projects for Portfolio: 1. Market Development Strategy for PPSI 2. Recycled Paint Marketing Guide for Distributors 3. Standards & Certification System 4. Use of LLP in Building Materials 5. Use of LLP in ADC

4 Ongoing Projects Comments on Federal Guidance Comments on CA EPP Database Rutgers Study Paint Recycling Company Concrete Study Canadian ADC Study

Non-Paint Uses of Leftover Latex Paint (LLP)

LLP In Building Materials

7 OBJECTIVES Research new uses of LLP in building materials such as: Colorant for concrete Caulking Waterproof foundation sealant Stucco Texturing material Concrete barriers

8 PROJECT SUMMARY Developing a non-paint use of LLP may offer an additional market for leftover paint recycling. In the past, LLP has been used in the manufacture of building materials with various levels of success. Additional pilot projects may help to either start or jump-start a non-paint use application. Could provide a market to reduce volume and cost of latex paint management.

9 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Standard criteria used in building industry. Type and amount of paint used in projects. Worker satisfaction surveys. Cost & availability of product vs. alternatives.

10 CRITERIA Cost Reductions Yes Market Development Yes National Applicability Yes Ability to Change Behavior Yes Protect Health & Environment Yes Produce Measurable Results Yes Viable/Level of Effort Yes Learn Something New Yes

11 RESOURCE NEEDS Staff (NPCA)200 Hours Time and Materials Est. $50,000 Project Management Est. $ 7,500 Overhead of P.M. Est. $ 1,875 Total Budget: $59,375

12 ACTION PLAN/TIMELINE Compile existing case studies 4 th Quarter 2004 Solicit interested companies 1 st Quarter 2005 Complete pilot projects 4 th Quarter 2005 Draft report & PPSI review 1 st Quarter 2006 Tentative results summary 1 st Quarter 2006

LLP Used As Alternative Daily Cover (“ADC”)

14 OBJECTIVES Consolidate information available on practice into formal guidance document for landfills that would like to start using LLP as an ADC. Provide funding to gather information from current users of this practice, prepare guidance document and, if needed, for landfills to pilot this practice to gather additional data.

15 PROJECT SUMMARY Offers opportunity to reduce cost of post- consumer paint and landfill management. Guidance would be directed towards communities that currently do not have the funds or ability to recycle latex paint and have landfill regulations and permit flexibility to institute the practice. Use of landfill contractor to conduct research on existing use and develop guidance document as well as a final pilot project report, if needed. NPCA and FDEP will oversee the projects.

16 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Performance measures will be based on ability of this practice to reduce LLP management costs while meeting environmental requirements of the landfill. Measures of cost include: Equipment Labor Reduced LLP, Landfill & Operations Any Technical LLP ADC Use

17 CRITERIA Cost Reductions Yes Market Development Yes National Applicability No Ability to Change Behavior N/A Protect Health & Environment Yes Produce Measurable Results Yes Viable/Level of Effort Yes Learn Something New Yes

18 RESOURCE NEEDS NPCA/FDEP Staff Time 200 Hours Consultant Est. $25,000 Pilot Project Est. $30,000 Project Management Est. $ 3,000 Total Budget: $58,750

19 ACTION PLAN/TIMELINES Find solid waste consultant/researcher 4 th Quarter 2004 Consolidate information4 th Quarter 2004 Review research to determine need for pilot 1 st Quarter 2005 Tentative results summary1 st Quarter 2006 Pilot report1 st Quarter 2006 Develop distribution of formal guidance document - Either 2 nd Quarter 2005 or 2006

Ongoing Projects for LLP Non-Paint Uses

21 RUTGERS STUDY Benjamin Moore contracted with Rutgers University to conduct a study on non-paint uses for LLP.

22 PAINT RECYCLING COMPANY STUDY The Paint Recycling Company is studying the effects of mixing LLP within concrete.

23 ADC EKOSEAL STUDY Canadian company is conducting research on using LLP as an ingredient in their product called EkoSeal and are in the process of securing a patent for this use.

Marketing Guide For Recycled Paint (“RP”) Distributors

25 OBJECTIVES To increase volume of RP sold to consumers by developing a flexible and adaptable comprehensive marketing guide for both public and private RP distributors.

26 OBJECTIVES, Continued Achieved by targeting a variety of market segments: Government Agencies Non-Profits Export Homeowners Painting Contractors

27 PROJECT SUMMARY Develop a RP marketing guide that will: Consolidate information and methods from current marketing efforts. Incorporate professional marketing analysis and advice. Support broader, more effective marketing programs.

28 PROJECT SUMMARY, Continued Structure the guide as a menu of options to be selectively implemented by RP distributors to suit their individual needs, abilities and interests in pursuing different market segments.

29 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Number of distributors implementing elements of the guide. Increase in the number and variety of RP products offered by distributors implementing elements of the guide. Increase in the volume of RP sold by distributors implementing elements of the guide, analyzed by market segment.

30 CRITERIA Cost ReductionIndirectly Market DevelopmentYes National ApplicabilityYes Ability to Change BehaviorYes Protect Health & EnvironmentIndirectly Produce Measurable ResultsYes Viability/Level of EffortYes Learn Something NewYes

31 RESOURCE NEEDS Staff Time:360 Hours/Hours Over Project (6 Persons X 4 Hours/Month X 15 Months) Time and Materials: Est. $ 20,000 Incidental Labor: Est. $ 5,000 Contractor Fees: Est. $ 75,000 Project Management (Incl. 25% Overhead) Est. $ 12,500 Total Budget:$112,500

32 ACTION PLAN / TIMELINE Initial Planning 4 th Quarter 2004 Research and Select Marketing Consultant 1 st Quarter 2005 Develop Outline and 1 st Draft Marketing Plan 2 nd Quarter 2005 Review and Revise Draft Marketing Plan 3 rd Quarter 2005 Finalize, Product and Distribute Marketing Plan 4 th Quarter 2005 Finalize, Product and Distribute Marketing Plan 4 th Quarter 2005

Standards & Certification Project

34 OBJECTIVE To overcome RP marketing barriers such as skepticism about the product’s quality and safety, set up a certification system. This system will be a set of guidelines for RP: Production Contents Performance Environmental Impacts

35 PROJECT SUMMARY Substantial discussion needed to achieve consensus on: What measurements to include? What standards to set for each measurement? How frequently to test? How the certification system will work? Do we include quality control standards for production?

36 PROJECT SUMMARY, Continued This process will probably include: Review of Existing Data Supplemental Testing of Various RP Producers Possible Partnering w/Other Organizations, e.g., ASTM, Green Seal, MPI, SCS

37 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Number of agencies or organizations adopting standard. Number of manufacturers certifying RP under the procedure developed. Increase in sales volume of certified paint.

38 CRITERIA Cost ReductionN/A Market DevelopmentYes National ApplicabilityYes Behavior ChangesYes Health & Environment Protection Yes Measurable ResultsYes Viability/Level of Effort Yes Learn Something NewYes

39 RESOURCE NEEDS Staff Time 300 Hours Travel Costs Est. $ 20,000 Research Costs Est. $ 60,000 Possible Fees to Outside Organization Est. $100,000 Project Management Est. $ 20,000 Overhead 25% of PM Est. $ 5,000 Proposed Budget: $205,000

40 ACTION PLAN/TIME LINE Establish Committee 1 st Quarter 2005 Conference Calls/Meetings 1 st Quarter 2006 Conduct Sample Testing 2 nd Quarter 2005 Certification Process 2 nd Quarter nd Quarter 2006 Draft Certification Proposal & Present to Stakeholders 4 th Quarter 2005 Finalize Certification System 1 st Quarter 2006 Meet w/RP Producers 2 nd Quarter 2006

Market Development Strategy for PPSI

42 OBJECTIVES To stimulate demand for RP by developing a strategy that will target those agencies and organizations that have significant influence over high- volume paint purchasing or specifying decisions.

43 PROJECT SUMMARY Develop, implement and modify the strategy whenever market development opportunities arise. The strategy shall include drafting and promoting adoption of a model procurement policy for states and local governments.

44 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Number of state & local governments that adopt the model procurement policy. Increase in purchase of RP for specific targeted agencies & organizations. Affect change in various green purchasing guidelines & specifications.

45 CRITERIA Cost Reduction Indirectly Market Development Yes National Applicability Yes Ability to Change Behavior Yes Protect Health & Environment Indirectly Produce Measurable Results Yes Viability/Level of Effort Yes Learn Something New Yes

46 RESOURCE NEEDS Staff Time 200 Hours Consultant Est. $35,000 Time & Matl. & Travel Est. $25,000 Project Management Est. $10,000 Overhead 25% of PM Est. $ 2,500 Proposed Budget: Est. $72,500

47 ACTION PLAN/TIME LINE Consolidate Information 4 th Quarter 2004 Hire Consultant 1st Quarter 2005 Review Research 1 st Quarter 2005 Draft Guidance Document 2nd Quarter 2005 Finalize Draft July 2005 Disseminate Guidance Document July ongoing

48 PPSI COMMENTS PPSI participants have been learning of on-going governmental guidance policies and databases updates and are proposing to submit comments to the following: Federal Guide for Green Construction Specifications, Paint Section State of California’s Environmentally Preferable Products Database

49 COMMENTS TO EPA FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION SPECS Specifier Note: Add RP conserves water, energy & raw materials, & reduces pollution. Part 1.2, Sub. A3, & Part 2.1 A2 Both call for Green Seal certification which is difficult & costly. Part 1.2, Sub. B & D Both sections require a tremendous amount of data collection.

50 COMMENTS TO EPA FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION SPECS, Continued Part 1.2, Sub. C: Labeled as pending & comments not possible at this time. Part 2.1, A1(a) Rules out RP for interior use.

51 COMMENTS TO EPA FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION SPECS, Continued Use of RP reduces the manufacture of virgin paint, which conserves water, raw materials and energy, as well as generates less pollution. Life cycle analysis of LP shows significant environmental impacts during the extraction of raw materials, the manufacturing process, and transportation of final products.

52 COMMENTS TO EPA FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION SPECS, Continued A significant percentage of the ingredients in LP are derived from petrochemicals, the extraction of which results in various environmental impacts, notably air emissions and waste discharges to surface waters. The extraction of titanium dioxide, another important LP ingredient, results in the production of significant quantities of sulfuric acid, metal sulfates and metal chlorides.

53 COMMENTS TO EPA FOR GREEN CONSTRUCTION SPECS, Continued The paint manufacturing process also uses energy and water, as well as generates pollution. The transportation of paint products to market uses fuel and generates pollution. Studies of the “embodied energy” of latex paint – the sum of all energy expended during its production and transportation – show 30,000-40,000 btu/lb, which is substantially higher than glass, steel, construction lumber and other building products.

54 Comments to the Federal Green Building Guidelines Can the comments on the Federal Green Building Guide be forwarded on behalf of PPSI? Shall it go on PSI letterhead? Signed by ? Due Monday September 27 th