Leftover Paint Collection - Why the Current System is

Not Working

Charlotte, North Carolina – September 2006Government Perspective

2

State & Local Government

Paint Collection Systems, success & failure: four government perspectives

California – Glenn Gallagher Iowa – Theresa Stiner Ramsey County, Minnesota – Leslie

Wilson Chittenden Solid Waste District, Vermont -

Jen Holliday

3

Funding & Infrastructure

Successful Leftover Paint Collection & Management hinge on two factors:

Infrastructure Funding

4

Paint/HHW Collection in U.S.

Ahead of Curve HHW Programs (CA, FL, MN, WA) – 22% of pop.

Some HHW Programs (AK, IA, KS, MO, NC, NJ, OR, TX, VT) – 18% of pop.

Less than Average HHW program development (All Other States) - 60% pop.

5

Permanent HHW Collection Programs

Ave Pop / Program

Color

< 150K Blue 150- 300 Green 300 - 450 Yellow 450-600 Red 600 – 750 Purple >750 White No sites Black

6

Leftover Paint Impact to California Local Government

California Government Perspective

7

Current Funding Mechanisms in CA

Solid Waste Tipping Fee/Surcharge Utility Fee add-on Parcel Fees All paint and HHW collection fees are

levied and used at the local level

8

Collection & Cost in California

Paint Collection from Households since 1984 (mature program)

2.1 Million Gallons collected FY 04-05 Cost approximately $8/gallon to Local

Government (no $$ from state)

9

Leftover Paint as % of all HHWHHW Collection in CA by Material - FY 04-05

Latex Paint19%

Oil Base Paint16%

All Others31%

Used Oil (has ARF)

11%E-Waste

(has ARF)23%

10

Leftover Paint Collection – 2000-2005

Paint Collection by HHW Programs in California

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

Mil

lio

ns

of

Gal

lon

s

Latex

Oil

11

Proper Collection vs. Paint not Collected

(California)

28% proper collection using leftover rate of 10%

28%

72%

Collected

NotCollected

Chart shows all leftover paint (green=collected)

12

Participation Rate by Households

In California, approx. 5.5% of Households brought HHW to a facility or temporary event in FY 2004-2005

25% of population (mostly rural areas) have no place to take leftover paint

13

Barriers to Increased Collection

Funding: Funds often run out 2-3 months

before end of fiscal year – stop accepting paint

Infrastructure: Collection sites not available in most

rural areas (in California, 20 of 58 counties are rural)

14

CA – Results & Lessons Learned in 20 years

CA Program Mature Infrastructure is OK (not great) Proper collection even with an

established program is only 28% Collection & cost increases 9%

annually Funding for collection lags behind

infrastructure

Iowa Perspective

16

Iowa’s Collection Infrastructure

Of Iowa’s 99 counties; 49 have collection facilities 20 have collection events 30 have no means of collection

17

Current Funding Mechanisms in IowaState Support to RCCs from tonnage fees,

FY05 $.21 per pound of hazardous material collected (latex not included)

Grants to establish RCCsLocal Retained tonnage fee and tipping fee. Charge to CESQGs for disposal

18

Collection & funding in FY05 134,766 pounds oil based paint

State reimbursement of $.21/pound ($28,300), remainder born by local governments

246,488 pounds latex paint All cost by local government

19

Leftover Paint as % of all material collected by RCCs

Latex25%

Oil based paint10%

Hazardous material

11%

Used Oil25%

Electronics8%

Other21%

20

Proper Collection vs. Paint Not Collected - Iowa

18%

82%

Collected

NotCollected

18% proper collection if leftover rate is 10%

21

Disposition of collected paint

Reuse25%

MSW Landfill52%

Fuel Blending

23%

22

Participation rate by Households Of households with access to an

RCC, 2.7% brought HHM to a facility or collection event.

23% of the population does not have access to collection facility or collection event

23

Barriers to increased collection One-day collection for counties not

served by RCC program is ending. Grant funds for establishing new

facilities is decreasing by 66% Local governments afraid to make

the commitment to starting a collection facility

Minnesota Perspective

25

0

50

100

150

200

Ve

hic

les

(T

ho

us

an

ds

)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION (Vehicles in Thousands)

26

TYPES OF HHW COLLECTED

Lead Acid Batteries

4%

Latex Paint24%

Consumer Electronics

41%

Other15%

Flam. Solvents

3%

Motor Oil/Filters

13%

In 2005: Ave. quantity of HHW collected per vehicle = 76.14 lbs

(slightly higher than the 2004 average of 75.68 pounds)

Increase due to greater collection of e- waste and latex paint.

27

Annual Cost (Recycling portion only) : $650,000

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

Po

un

ds

(m

illio

ns

)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

LATEX PAINT COLLECTED

28

SWMCB Historical Perspective HHW education & collection

mandated in 1992 1988 MPCA Product Stewardship

Perspective

29

Barriers to Increased Paint Convenient locations Educating Consumers

30

Current Financing - Minnesota

Solid waste tax at landfills State grants Solid waste fees from property taxes Solid waste fees charged directly to

garbage haulers and based on garbage bills

Donations – very small amount

Vermont Perspective

32

Chittenden Solid Waste District Vermont Serving 57,600 households in Chittenden

County Mature 15 year program with mobile and

permanent component. 298 collection days in FY2006

15% households participate per year Cost of program in FY06 $564,399 Funded by Tip Fee on Trash In FY06, paint was 50% of the program’s

waste stream (20,300 gallons latex, 9,300 gallons of oil based paint)

33

Latex Paint Management

FY 06 Latex Paint Management

7,915 , 40%

5,824 , 29%

6,250 , 31%

Recycling Canada

Local Color

Waste

FY 06 Latex Paint Management Costs

$22,701 , 41%

$3,875 , 7%

$29,187 , 52%

Recycling Canada

Local Color

Waste

34

Paint Percentage of Material Managed & Disposal Cost

Disposal Costs for Paint

$-

$5,000.00

$10,000.00

$15,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$30,000.00

01 02 03 04 05 06

fiscal year

oil paint

latex paint

Paint as Percent of all Material Collected

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Fiscal Year

Latex Paint

Oil Paint

35

Annual Participation Compared to Volume of Paint Collected

Participation vs Paint Collected

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06

fiscal year

Parcticipation Paint Collected

36

Collection Program is Unsustainable

Percent Total Tip Fees Used for Collection Program

0%

5%

10%15%

20%

25%

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Fiscal Year

37

Problems with the Current Collection System Funding growth is not keeping up

with program growth Paint volume increase is

disproportional to participation increase

All unwanted paint is not being collected

Need more markets for recycled paint

3838

Questions?Questions?