Taking Out the Trash: A Source Reduction Pilot Project Monitoring Results

Transcription

1 Taking Out the Trash: A Source Reduction Pilot Project Monitoring Results

2 Project Purpose To identify opportunities for reducing San Francisco Bay trash at the source

3 Funding provided by: California Coastal Commission Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund Clif Bar Family Foundation The Wellness Foundation

4 Background 2009 Municipal Regional Permit issued by Regional Water Quality Control Board Requires reduction of discharges of trash to creeks and the Bay to zero. Most jurisdictions increasing litter collection and storm drain control measures. Some implementing bag and polystyrene bans. Four jurisdictions participated Oakland, Richmond, San Jose, and South San Francisco. Community-based partners include The Watershed Project, Oakland High School s environmental academy and San Jose State University s environmental studies program.

5 TOTT Advisory Board Linda Hunter, The Watershed Project Paula White, The Watershed Project Eben Schwartz, California Coastal Commission Lesley Estes, City of Oakland Will Stockard, City of Oakland Lynne Scarpa, City of Richmond Paul Ledesma, City of San Jose Rob Lecel, City of South San Francisco Julie Casagrande, San Mateo County Chris Sommers, EOA Consulting, Inc. The advisory board includes representatives from the four cities storm water programs, trash monitoring experts, and our local watershed program partner, The Watershed Project.

6 Developing the Monitoring Program Research existing monitoring protocol for trash data collection Originally envisioned storm drain trash determined storm drains influenced by upstream communities Determined street litter is closer to local sources. Further criteria was developed for: 1) Site Selection 2) Data collection sheets 3) Data sampling protocol 4) Frequency of Sampling

7 Step 1: Site Selection Trash monitoring sites were intended to provide a snapshot of litter in the community. They were selected using the following criteria: 1. Broad spectrum of business and institutional sources (fast food, convenience, grocery, malls, schools, transit areas, institutions) 2. Site is highly impacted by trash 3. A delivery pathway to a water body exists- wind, rain, and direct deposition to ensure that trash empties directly to an impaired water body (as opposed to vehicular deposition) 4. Area has high level of foot traffic (i.e. litter from pedestrians as opposed to cars) to ensure that it is locally generated trash and comes directly from the community 5. Area had a good source of potential volunteers 6. Distance covered is ¼ mile of street, both sides

8 Step 2: Develop Data Collection Sheets Started with Rapid Trash Assessment and SWAMP data sheets Organized according to the material composition Identifiable brands or point of sales (POS s) recorded If no brand or point of sale (POS) evident, marked as unknown Field tested twice

9 Unique Products Survey Developed to identify sources of unbranded trash Pre-survey of businesses in each site Identified unique disposable products used by specific businesses in survey area

10 Step 3: Develop Data Sampling Protocol A team of volunteers, interns, and staff collected data. Litter was collected 1 foot from the curb into the street and 30 feet from the curb towards the adjacent building, parking lot, or other type of development. Data included only identifiable products, not pieces and fragments Based on field testing of the data sheet, cigarette butts were by far the most frequently littered items. They were eliminated from the data collection as it was infeasible to count every cigarette butt.

11 Step 4: Determine Frequency of Sampling Data collected 3 times at each site Each site had to have at least 4 days of accumulation (no significant rain or street sweeping)

12 Challenges Excessive rain: the Oakland and San Jose sites did not have at least 4 days of trash accumulation due to an excessively rainy season and the inability to postpone street sweeping. San Jose staff were unable to complete site selection, resulting in only 1 site in San Jose Inability of Oakland City staff to delay street sweeping and coordinating with student volunteers added additional challenges in Oakland and resulted in only 1 sample site. Cigarette butts had to be eliminated from the study as they were too numerous to count.

13 SSF- EL CAMINO Sites SSF- MISSION impacts Colma Creek RICHMOND SAN PABLO impacts Colma Creek RICHMOND- MacDONALD impacts Baxter Creek impacts Santa Fe Creek

14 Sites SAN JOSE OAKLAND impacts Coyote Creek impacts Lake Merritt note that the limited # of sites only provide a snapshot this is not a full characterization of litter in each community

15 TOTT Results: All Sites Combined

16 Distribution of Items Combined Sites Cigarette butts were the #1 item

17 Top Items* Combined *Chart represents items with >200 pieces of waste

18 Known vs. Unknown Sources of Waste Combined *For unknown sources, the exact POS could not be identified (McDonalds, Target, etc.), even though the brand may have been known (Newport, Wrigley, etc.). For known sources, the exact POS was identified.

19 Known Sources of Waste Combined The largest sources of waste collected were from fast food stores and convenience stores.

20 Breakdown of Unknown Sources Combined *Other groups together all items with > or = 3% contribution

21 Specific Point of Sale Combined *Includes POSs accountable for >20 item of waste, Does not include unknown POS

22 Product Distribution Combined Food Packaging: Plastic, paper, aluminum, polystyrene foam, and composite food containers Plastic food container lids Plastic and paper condiment wrappers/packets Plastic snack food wrappers Other plastic food wrappers Composite food wrappers Utensils Plastic and paper take out food bags Lollipop/popsicles Napkins Beverage Packaging: Plastic Beverage Bottle Plastic Beverage Lids Plastic, Paper, and Styrofoam Cups Cup Sleeves Plastic Bottle Caps Metal Bottle caps/lids/pull tabs Straws Coffee Stirrers Six pack rings Alcohol bottles Glass bottles Aseptic containers (juice boxes) Cans Tobacco Packaging Cellophane wrapper Paperboard box Plastic Cigarette Holder Tobacco can Rolling paper Lighters 68% of waste collected was a product of food and beverage packaging Other Packaging: Plastic Containers Grocery/Retail Bags Other Plastic Bags Paper, plastic, and composite nonfood wrappers Non- Packaging: Dental floss picks Tickets Flyers/menu/other printed paper Newspapers Products tags and labels Receipts Batteries Dryer sheets

23 Packaging Distribution Breakdown of Food Packaging Reusable Potential

24 Potential for Reusable Food Products Potential Sources for Reusables: Plastic and paper take-out food bags Aluminum foil and paper food wrappers Styrofoam and aluminum food containers Plastic food containers and lids Utensils Non-reusable Food Packaging: Napkins Plastic snack food wrappers Composite food wrappers Lollipop and popsicle sticks Sugar and condiment packets There is 39% potential for food packaging to be reduced through the introduction of reusable food products, with more opportunities for complete product reduction of nonreusables.

25 Packaging Distribution Breakdown of Beverage Packaging Reusable Potential

26 Potential for Reusable Beverage Containers Potential Sources for Reusables: Paper, plastic, and styrofoam cups Plastic beverage Lids Coffee cup ids Paper cup sleeves Coffee stirrers Straws Non-reusable Beverage Packaging: Plastic and glass Bottles Metal Cans Metal bottle caps/lids/pull tabs Six pack rings Plastic bottle caps There is 66% potential for beverage packaging to be reduced through the introduction of reusable beverage products, with more opportunities for complete product reduction of nonre-usables.

27 Overall Potential for Reducing Litter through Reusable Products Taking into account ALL litter collected, up to 13% of waste could be reduced by increasing the use of reusable beverage products, and up to 18% of waste could be reduced by increasing the use of reusable food products.

28 Waste by Material Type Total: Total Plastic 40% Total Paper 40% Tobacco Products* 9% Total Metal 6% Composite 5% Total Miscellaneous <1% Total Glass <1% * Excludes cigarette butts

29 Next Steps Having completed Phase 1 in the Talking Out the Trash project, our follow-up objectives are to: Cost-benefit analysis for re-usable vs. disposable beverage containers Develop and provide Guide for Reducing Take-out Food and Beverage Packaging Conduct voluntary waste reduction audits with businessesassess waste reduced Engage local businesses in solving the problem