Taking Out the Trash: A Source Reduction Pilot Project. Report on Phase 1- Monitoring Results

Transcription

1 Taking Out the Trash: A Source Reduction Pilot Project Report on Phase 1- 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 in Richmond, 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 Intended to provide a snapshot of litter. Criteria for site selection: Step 1: Site Selection 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 at businesses in survey area

10 Step 3: Develop Data Sampling Protocol A team of volunteers, interns, and staff collected data. Litter 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. Cigarette butts eliminated from the data collection too many to count

11 Step 4: Determine Frequency of Sampling Data collected 3 times at each site Each site had to have at least four 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 Sites SSF- EL CAMINO 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 the Guadaloupe 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 Categories of Data Presented Items = napkins, cups, straws, etc. Point of Sale (POS) = fast food, convenience store, etc. Brand Name = McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Type of Product = food packaging, beverage packaging, etc.

17 Napkin (paper) Snack food wrapper (plastic) Receipt (paper) Food wrapper (paper) Cellophane wrapper (tobacco product) Flyer/menu/other printed paper (paper) Food wrapper (composite) Straw (plastic) Non-food wrapper (plastic) Aluminum foil/food wrapper (metal) Bottle Cap (plastic) Beverage lid (cold - plastic) Other food wraper (plastic) Paperboard box (tobacco product) Condiment wrapper (plastic) Cup (paper) Bottle caps/lids/pull tabs (metal) Food container (incl. condiments - plastic) Non-food wrapper (paper) Ticket (paper) Bag (other - plastic) Product tag or label (paper) Cup (plastic) Carry out food bag (paper) Bag (grocery/retail - plastic) Plastic Cigarette Holder (tobacco product) Food container/plate/bowl (paper) Utensil (plastic) Newspaper (paper) Coffee cup lid (plastic) Lollipop/popsicle stick (paper) Food container lid (incl. condiments - plastic) Styrofam container (plastic) Styrofoam cup (plastic) Bottle (beverage - plastic) Sugar, s&p, condiment packet (paper) Cup sleeve (paper) Non-food wrapper (composite) Take out food bag (plastic) Batteries Alcohol Bottle (glass) Lighter (tobacco product) Non-food container (plastic) Food container (composite) Aseptic container (juice box - composite) Tobacco can (tobacco product) Rolling paper (tobacco product) Can (metal) Coffee Stirrer (plastic) Dryer sheets Aluminum food container (metal) Dental floss pick (plastic) Non-alcohol bottle (glass) Six pack ring (plastic) Number of items 1200 Distribution of Items Combined Sites Known POS 600 Unknown POS 400 POS = Point of Sale Cigarette butts were the #1 items - no data collected due to immense quantity.

18 Number of items Top Items* Combined Sites Unknown POS 800 Known POS POS = Point of Sale Cigarette butts were the #1 items - no data collected due to immense quantity. *Chart represents items with >200 pieces of waste collected

19 Known Versus Unknown Point of Sale Combined Sites Known POS 19% POS = Point of Sale Unknown POS 81%

20 Known Point of Sale Combined Sites Pharmacy 5% Transit Station 3% Bank 3% POS = Point of Sale Retail Store 8% Grocery Store 11% Convenience Store 10% Fast food 49% The largest sources of waste collected were from fast food stores and grocery stores. Restaurant 4% Café/Coffee shop 7% *only takes into account litter with known POS

21 Number of items Brands Combined *Includes brands accountable for >30 items of waste, does not include unknown brands.

22 Type of Product Combined Tobacco Packaging 9% Other Non- Packaging 15% Other Packaging 9% Beverage Packaging 19% Food Packaging 48% Food Packaging: Plastic, paper, aluminum, styrofoam, 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 67% 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 Number of items Product Distribution - Breakdown of Food Packaging- Combined Sites Reusable Potential

24 Potential for Reusable Food Packaging Combined Sites Reusable Food Products 40% There is 40% potential for food packaging to be reduced through the introduction of reusable food products, with more opportunities for complete product reduction of nonreusables. Nonreusable Food Products 60% 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

25 Number of items Product Distribution - Breakdown of Beverage Packaging- Combined Sites Reusable Potential

26 Potential for Reusable Beverage Packaging - Combined Sites Reusable Beverage Products 34% Non-reusable Beverage Products 66% 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.

27 Overall Potential for Reducing Litter through Reusable Products- Combined Sites Reusable Beverage Products 13% Non-reusable Litter 69% Reusable Food Products 18% 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 Number of items Waste by Material Type- Combined Sites Total : Total Paper 40% Total Plastic 40% Tobacco Products 9% Total Metal 6% Total Composite 5% Total Glass - < 1% Total Miscellaneous < 1%

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