1. 1 PSI’s Fluorescent Lamp Project Defining End-of-Life Product Infrastructure Needs for Small Volume Consumers National Dialogue Meeting, July 15th 2008, Seattle WA Presented by David Nightingale, WA Dept. of Ecology

2. 2 Overview Define the materials stream and rate Assess existing infrastructure, performance, effectiveness and cost ID gaps, Choose preferred methods Set measurable goals with timeframe Implement & Track progress Example: Leftover architectural paint

3. 3 Define Material Stream Materials include: architectural paint leftover from household and small painting contractors Materials exclude: specialty paints, OEM paint, art paint, epoxies, industrial coatings

4. 4 Define Material Generation Rate Original background research estimated leftover paint was approximately 5% of sales Doubts regarding accuracy of original estimate led to a more detailed study & best est. of 10% of sales become leftover 10% agreed baseline by stakeholders

5. 5 Assess existing infrastructure, performance, effectiveness and cost Survey known US recycling capacity Interviewed existing collection programs to estimate range of performance and cost –Cost per unit managed ( $/gallon of leftover paint ) –Recovery rate – percent of annual generation rate collected. Paint Example… 2.5 gallons of paint sold per person/yr. Generation rate, 10% of sold or 0.25 gal./capita If 0.125 gal/capita collected = 50% Recovery rate

6. 6 Identify Infrastructure Gaps, Choose preferred methods Gap analysis for Paint Recycling/ Processing Capacity Analysis of known collection, processing and transportation methods for convenience and economy of scale

7. 7 Gap analysis - Paint Recycling Capacity, est. 500 mile reach

8. 8 Estimated New Processing Facilities Needed REGION Level of Collection Assumed Low (0.06 gals per person) Medium (0.11 gals per person) High (0.17 gals per person) Extra High (0.23 gals per person) Northwest000-1 West0000 Midwest0001-3 South1-21-41-62-7 Southeast1-31-62-82-11 East1-31-41-62-8 Northeast000-11-2 TOTAL3 - 83 - 144 - 228 - 32

9. 9 Collection Point Findings Permanent collection sites are more cost effective than collection events, except in very rural areas Current number of HHW collection points are insufficient, not expected to expand to satisfy expected needs, and not evenly distributed

10. 10 Collection Methods – Convenience and Efficiency Take advantage of Existing collection points Model additional infrastructure needs by 1.Minimum Service Levels and 2.Throughput Capacity

11. 11 Existing HHW Collection Points

12. 12 Minimum Collection Service Levels Based on a few existing programs Implies that at least 2,090 sites are needed However, most programs generally do not provide high recovery rates, often 50%± GEOGRAPHIC TYPE PEOPLE PER COLLECTION POINT EXAMPLE PROGRAM AND DATA SOURCE Super-Urban100,000Vancouver, B.C. Urban/Metro350,000Portland, OR Isolated Cities23,000 British Columbia (outside Vancouver metro area) Very RuralN/A N/A (serviced by mobile or one- day events)

13. 13 Collection Point Throughput Capacity Analysis Estimate cans of paint/week and /yr for geographic types (super-urban, metro…) Estimate pickups per year per collection site for transportation cost Calculate number of sites needed per geographic area for various recovery rates: 25, 50, 75 and 100%.

14. 14 Estimated US Collection Points Needed from Throughput Modeling Recovery Rate Low, 25%Med., 50% High, 75% Extra- High, 100% Collection Points Needed 1,924 to 3,247 3,028 to 5,451 4,351 to 8,198 5,676 to 10,944

15. 15 Example: WA Infrastructure Analysis

16. 16 Set Measurable Goals & Timeframe Goals differ based on existing level of recovery If currently at low recovery rates set short term goal at medium level If currently at medium recovery rate set short term goal at high This is in process for leftover paint

17. 17 Implement & Track Progress Monitor progress toward measurable Goals and adjust program as needed Set intermediate times to measure progress, perhaps annual checking for 5- year goal Compile results and present to stakeholders for review and potential program adjustments

18. 18 Paint Infrastructure Study Costs $156,000 plus donated time –Waste Stream Generation Rate Study $20,000 consulting firm report 100 hours donated staffing by stakeholder project lead Funding: US EPA HQ –Infrastructure Report $116,000 consulting firm report $20,000 PSI research and project support Many hours of donated time by stakeholders Funding: 2 Associations, 3 States, 3 Local Govt.