LOCAL GOVERNMENT EPR San Francisco’s experience banning and regulating products and private sector activities Kevin Drew Residential and Special Projects Zero Waste Coordinator

Outline  Plastic Bag Ban  Foodware ordinance bans foam plastic  Construction & Demolition Ordinance  Mandatory Recycling & Composting Ordinance  Phthalates Products ban  Pharmaceuticals Take Back

San Francisco Statistics  Demographics  850,000 population, 1.3 million day time in 127 sq km, 9842/km2  Multilingual population - 50% don’t speak English at home  Collection & Facility Service Infrastructure  Private companies for 80 years, now “Recology - Waste Zero”, exclusive permitted collectors (for trash, compostables and most recyclables, not most of C&D) as well as processing SF recyclables and compostables  Variable service rates (PAYT) through city rate review approval process funds collection and processing  In-city recycling processing, regional composting and regional landfill via city transfer station

San Francisco Zero Waste Goals  75% Landfill Diversion for by 2010  Zero Waste by 2020 Political Drivers and Structure CA AB 939 requires 50% LF diversion by 2000 with fines, City & County with Committed Mayor & Board of Supervisors SF had reached AB 939 goals by 2000

Municipal Waste tip of the “wasteberg ” Upstream manufacturing waste is 70 times greater Wasteberg

Plastic Bag Ban ordinance

Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance  Began as a $.25/bag fee in 2005  Opposed by local stores and plastic industry, resulting in a 1 year pilot of voluntary reduction  Stores unresponsive and pilot ineffective  Statewide effort to regulate bags leads to 2,500 grocery stores agree to recycle all plastic bags  Industry includes local pre-emption clause in bill, disallowing local fees  SF politicians incensed, bag ban passes 11-0 in weeks

Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance impacts  50 large supermarkets included  50 chain pharmacies included in 2 years  150M bags used annually, reduced to 50M  100Mbag reduction estimated  Extensive reuseable bag promotion  No discernable impact on health of San Franciscans or on grocery stores and pharmacies

SF Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance  Effective June 2007  Food vendors cannot use of polystyrene foam (EPS) for food prepared and served in San Francisco.  Styrene life cycle health impacts, non-compostable & non- recyclable, terrestrial & marine food web impacts  Food vendors can only use disposable food ware that is acceptable as compostable or recyclable in SF unless city determines no suitable or affordable (no more than 15% more expensive) option exists.  Over 4500 restaurants, cafes and take-out establishments targeted with outreach, including product showcase events and working with distributors.

University Food Court – Customized Signage and Sorting station

Foodservice Ware BAN Results  Total food establishments – 4,500  Compliance checks to date – 4,025  In compliance – 3,944  Warnings issued – 557  Citations issued –175  Appeals – 2 (both resolved)

Construction & Demolition Ordinance  Effective July 1, 2006  Registration of facilities and transporters  No fees, simple application process  Nothing can go to landfill, everything must be source separated or sent to a processing facility  6 facilities in 6 months, 12 total as of April 2011  Facilities must attain at least 65% diversion  390 transporters registered from 12 counties, up to 250 miles away

Mandatory Composting & Recycling Ordinance  Passed July 2009, effective October 2009  Property managers must provide color-coded receptacles, signage and education  Food establishments with disposable foodware must provide 3-stream bins for public  Everyone must separate recyclables, compostables and trash

Mandatory Composting & Recycling Ordinance  Over 2,500 apartment buildings have added compost service since October 2009  Compliance up to 70%, 6200 out of 8500 in apt bldgs  Inspected over 50,000 curbside accounts in the past year, many tagged w/ “love notes”, no fines yet  Over 1000 businesses have added green bin service  Organics collection went from 390 tpd to 550tpd in the past year since ordinance went into effect

Phthalate Product Ban  Ordinance banning sale of products containing phthalates designed for use by children under the age of 3.  Several larger retailer agreed to not carry at any stores  California followed with restrictions on use  US followed suit as well

Pharmaceuticals Take Back  Ordinance drafted in 2010 and passed in 2011  Industry opposed  Prior to implementation, industry came forward with a voluntary take back program  Industry subsequently has provided funding of $120,000 for initial phase  4 police stations, 12 pharmacies set to participate starting June 2011

Important steps in local EPR effort  Spend time with stakeholders when earnest  Take your best shot, there will be unintended consequences, roll with the punches  After implementation, spend time with the public and the effected audience  Educate, hand-hold, spread best practices  Warn, threaten before levying penalty – we often see compliance at this point  Penalize egregious violators only after much process

For more information or if you have questions please contact: SF Department of Environment Residential and Special Projects Zero Waste Coordinator Kevin Drew (415)