1. The National Paint Product Stewardship Initiative NAHMMA / Northwest Conference Sept 22, 2005 Greater Tacoma Trade and Convention Center Presented by David Nightingale WA Dept. of Ecology and NW Product Stewardship Council

2. Some Results of the Paint Product Steward. Dialogue A preliminary estimate by US EAP suggests that 8-22% of the architectural paint sold becomes leftover Questions about how long households keep paint before it is considered waste needed and answer. So an “Age of leftover paint study” was conducted by the NW Product Stewardship Council - Paint Advisory Group

3. Age of Leftover Paint Study Compiled and analyzed data sets from 5 cities or counties in Puget Sound leftover collection sites There are more cans of oil-based paint brought to collection sites than the proportion sold ( Homeowners hold onto their left over paint a long time, most more than 5 years, many for more than a decade

5. Age of Paint by Batch Code Batch code on paint can label identifies age of paint. Initial survey of can data performed to ID manufacturer and batch code from 169 cans. US EPA (Region 10) batch code data set helpful but incomplete, less than half of 23 listed manufacturers were in the sample of 169 cans. Called other top brand manufacturers to supplement EPA info. Many batch codes use only single-digit year codes (can’t necessarily tell 1994 from 2004 or 1984)

6. Paint Age – Initial Results Of 169 cans -->57% latex, 43% oil based 53 manufacturers, 62% of cans from top 11 brands 42% of cans unusable for survey data 15%: No codes found on cans 27%: Codes unreadable, or obscured (painted over) Codes recorded were often product (SKU) codes instead of batch codes Only 26% of cans had double number - or single-letter coding for accurate dating – only 9 manufacturers.

7. SKU vs. Batch Codes

8. Obscured or Partially Obscured Batch Code Examples Obscured Code

9. Batch Codes with “good” date info.

10. Batch Code with insufficient date info.

11. Fine Tuned Final Data Gathering Limited final study to cans from the 26% (9 manufacturers) that had sufficient year batch code information for accurate dating.

12. Collection Location and First Year ofTotalCansProportion by Paint Type Permanent SystemCansDated% Latex% Oil-basedPopulation Tukwila, 19891505560.7%39.3% 17,240 Kent, 19891849255.7%44.3% 84,560 Kitsap County, 1996 1 1606635.2%64.8% 239,500 Seattle, 19883711NA* 572,600 Snohomish County, 199916610465.7%34.3% 644,800 Totals697328 Averages 47.1%54.3%45.7% Age of Paint - Survey Communities 1 Kitsap County discourages collection of latex paint.

14. 50% of cans <7 yrs old 90% of cans <14 yrs old

15. Implications of Age Study If historic practices continue… –It will take at least 6 years to collect 50% of the left over paint cans in storage –It will take over 13 years to collect 90% of the left over paint cans in storage –Less than 4 % of left over paint is > 20 years old

16. Implications of Paint Age Study (cont.) If historic practices continue… –Proportionally more left over oil-based (alkyd) paint will be stored and returned than latex paint (difference between sales & collection). –There will be significant volumes of oil-based paints needing proper disposal (generally unavailable now) Perhaps an average of 45% oil-based paint (±20% depending on community) –Customers manage or retain oil-based and latex paints differently.

17. Other Results of the Paint Dialogue The municipal leftover paint collection and processing infrastructure is inadequate to manage current levels of leftover paint The MOU established 11 projects that are critical to develop the data needed to make sound next step decisions

18. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Most key industry and government participants have signed the MOU including NPCA and US EPA Also created an endorsers category for interested parties to show support for the MOU process Agencies representing populations of 1/2 of WA state endorsed the MOU Process now called the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative (PPSI)

19. Paint MOU Projects Participants are soliciting funds for projects as well as staff support for PSI to continue facilitation and staff effort

20. MOU Timeline 18 months to complete MOU projects starting April 1, 2005 Then 6 months to work on a collaborative final agreement Goal: Decisions regarding a nationally- coordinated leftover paint system by April 1, 2007 or sooner

21. MOU Projects 4 & 5 Project 4 - Modeling the leftover paint management infrastructure –Project needs as they vary geographically, needs for collection, transportation and processing of leftover paint that is cost- effective and complete with appropriate regional variations Project 5 – Estimate costs of the infrastructure

22. Draft Report Integrating PPSI MOU Projects 4 & 5 Draft report prepared by SCS Engineers for $71,500. Have contributions for about $19,000. Need about $40 - 50,000 for Final Report.

23. Draft report approach Use existing data and additional research to determine level of service to have an effective system as well as estimates for processing facilities for economy of scale.

24. Range of collection based on sales 2.5 to 10 percent of sales, still being investigated, not sure what best modeling range is A preliminary EPA estimate is 5-22% based on MSW and other studies 100% of leftover paint is not possible Process latex for recycling with offsetting revenue or solidification and no revenue Using work from Vermont, Canada, Portland, and other more advanced programs

25. Geographic Variation Looking at Various population densities –Super Urban (NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc) –Urban Metropolitan Areas –Isolated Cities (Micro-politan census areas) –Rural (all other census areas) Looking at waste “sheds” for processing facilities, both existing capacity and gaps

26. Collection System and Processing Planning level estimates of collection points based on existing collection, retail location distribution Conceptual design and budgeting for collection and processing system Requires a lot of assumptions and judgment to fill in blanks – this will be a large task to be fleshed-out to make the final report.

27. GIS Preliminary Analysis

28. Preliminary Processing Capacity Analysis Existing Capacity Paint to be Processed (Gallons /Yr)(Gallons / Yr) Capacity Needed Facilities Needed Northwest1,600,0001,100,00000 West9,500,0004,600,00000 Midwest9,000,0006,200,00000 South03,400,0003,400,0001-2 Southeast04,700,0004,700,0001-2 East03,300,0003,300,0001-2 Northeast3,000,0002,900,00000 TOTAL Need 3- 6 facilities (0.30 gallons per household, medium scenario, less 20% reuse)

29. Additional Info./Follow-up Most of the documents and process are available on the PSI website. Go to: http://www.productstewardship.us/prod_paint_nat_dia.html Contact David Nightingale (360) 407-6392 dnig461@ecy.wa.gov Thank you very much!!