River Litter: Serious Business

Gijsbert TweehuysenWaste Free Waters

March 2013

How to approach the litter problem?

• Recoverable products are recovered because they represent value for recycling companies (e.g. recovery of high value PET-bottles)

• Waste products have lost almost all economic value (that is why they became waste!) and are only collected by subsidized organizations, when society does not accept the ecological consequences of dumping.

• Finally end-users determine where they discard their used products: in the organized system or they litter.

• The resulting ecological impact of litter is now a societal problem

• 80% of marine litter comes from land and rivers play a significant contributing role in marine pollution

The key question is:Do we regard river litter as a problem that we have to deal with???

Fundamental questions to answer:

1. How big is the (river) litter problem?(do we know the size and impact of the problem?)

2. How much litter pollution do we accept? (do we have agreements on standards or limits?)

3. Can we solve the problem?(what instruments or solutions do we have; technical, behavioural, economic, else ?)

4. Can we control the system? (can we design a closed-loop system for materials orproducts?)

We need a control loop

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

1 st step: sampling river litter

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

Sampling river litter in the Meuse

Research question:

How much does a river contribute to the problem of “plastic soup”?

A first samling attempt in oktober 2012:• The Meuse near Eijsden (BE-NL border)• The ship “de Blauwe Reiger”• The sampling equipment

Oktober 2012: 5 initial trawls for testing the system and the sampling, sorting and reporting procedures.

The Meuse

• A pluvial river, basin area: 36.000 km2

• Flows 925 km through France, Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea

• Big variations in throughput in summer and winter

• Canalized for a substantial part of it’s length• Sampling location: Eijsden (NL)

Variations in throughput from 1990 – 2000 (m3/s)

The ship

• Sufficient length (15 m) to sail in fast flowingriver

• Sufficient deck spacefor handling the equipment

• Comfortable and stablefor safe operation, alsoin winter

The sampling equipment

2 nets ( 3,2 mm):Surface net

Width: 1 m

Suspension netOpening: 0,5 m2

Xspeed: m/s

Xtime: s

=Sampled m2

Sampled m3

Sampling pontoon:

Results:• Flexibels per m2 or m3

• Rigids per m2 or m3

• Total in upper part of the watercolumn (0 – 70 cm depth)

Sampling conditionsdate Throughput

(m3/s)Wind

directionWind

speed(m/s)Measuring

time(hr)

Measureddistance to water (km)

10-10-2012 298 E 2.3 2:32 11,4

17-10-2012 125 S 4.7 3:07 14,1

24-10-2012 0 ENE 3.5 3:00 18,4

31-10-2012 113 S 4.6 1:07 7,4

31-10-2012 113 S 4.6 2:29 10,1

Sampling conditions

• Mostly macroplastics, size > 3,2 mm• Sorting:

– flexible and rigid– Surface and suspension– Large and small (larger or smaller than 25

mm)

• Categorised with OSPAR list• Based on 5 trawls• Low throughput level of the river

Found concentration of items/km2

in upper part of the water column (0 – 70 cm)

Items per km2 (surface and suspension together)

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

1 2 3 4 5

totaal

flex

rigid

Suggests a relationship with throughput (298, 125, 0, 113, 113 m3/s)

totalflexible

rigid

80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

Items larger and smaller than 25 mm

Number of items caught

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

surface suspension

Large and small

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

surface suspension

Majority of items (± 75%) are “small” macroplastics (between 3,2 mm and 25 mm)

> 25 mm (large)< 25 mm rigid< 25 mm flex

surface suspension surface suspension

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100%

0%

90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

Surface vs. Suspension

Surface

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5

Suspension

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5

More rigidson the surface

More flexiblesin suspension

rigidflexible

100%

0%

90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

100%

0%

90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

Items surface vs. suspensionper km2

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Surface per km2 Suspension per km2/m3

totaal

flex

rigid

More items on surface,most rigids

Less items in suspension,most flexibles

totalflexible

rigid

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0surface suspension

Number of items transportedtowards the sea

Number of items per hour

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

1 2 3 4 5

• Average: 15.127 items/hr– Flexible: 6.079 items– Rigid: 9.049 items

• Maximum: 30.387 items/hr– Flexible: 8.417 items– Rigid: 21.970 items

• Conditions:– Water velocity: ± 3 km/hr– Width river: 150 m– Only top 70 cm

totalflexible

rigid

10.000

35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

5.000

0

2nd step: evaluation of the results

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

Evaluation question: What is the meaning of this number?

Meuse transports approximately 15.000 items/hrat relatively low throughput rates.

At sea:• North Pacific Gyre: > 300.000 floating items/km2

• North Atlantic and Caribbean: > 200.000 floating items/km2

• Mediterranean > 100.000 floating items/km2

• North Sea 528 items/km2 on the sea floor

Which implies that it takes the Meuse, • less than 24 hrs to enlarge the North Pacific Gyre with 1 km2

• ca. 12 hrs to add 1 km2 to the North Atlantic garbage area• ca. 6 hrs to add 1 km2 to the Mediterranean garbage area

Question: Is this “much”???

• Yes, it is much, even in these relativelyfavourable conditions where the Meusenormally is considered to be “clean”.

• Number of items expected to be higher when– Throughput increases– Right after floods– Later in the season

• To get a more representative number:– Extra trawls needed during the season– In more different conditions

3rd step: What do we think is acceptable?

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing in the sea

To take mitigating action…

• Political processesmust lead to legislation and standards to controlthe problem

• We need a newbalance betweeneconomy and ecology

Economy or Ecology?

• There is no (numerical) definition of the allowed concentration of litter in the MSFD– Descriptor: Properties and quantities of

marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective

Water Framework Directive

• There is not even a reference for river litter in the WFD, – possibly: “materials in suspension”

• But directive 76/464/EEC list I mentions as pollutingsubstance: – “persistent synthetic substances which may float, remain in

suspension or sink and which may interfere with any use of the waters”

• But they have never been labelled as priority substances

“The substance-specific directives related to Directive 76/464/EEC are also widely known as ‘daughter’ Directives. However, the term ‘daughter’ directive is misleading because it suggests that these specific directives are based on another Directive, in this case 76/464/EEC. The specific directives for list I substances are separate, independent pieces of legislation based on the Treaty. There is no hierarchy between directives. In consequence, the repeal of Directive 76/464/EEC under the Water Framework Directive does not affect or change the provisions of the specific directives. They remain entirely into force. In conclusion, we suggest not to use the term ‘daughter’ directives but rather 'specific' directives for list I substances to avoid misinterpretations.”

• This means that local autorities today have no instruments to take action on river litter

4 th step: Take action

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

It’s all about rest value: Added Value minus Lost Value

productsin use

post-useproducts

physicalproducts

sortedmaterials

endproducts

sortedproducts

rawmaterials

recoveredresources

Sustainableresources

depletableresources waste

re-use

recycling

recovery

discard

LOST

VAL

UE

ADDE

D VA

LUE

economicalframework

ecologicalframework

Possible actions: recovery

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

Recovery

Recovery of products with highest rest value

Only waste withhigh rest value

will be recoveredand recycled for

profit reasons

Recovery of clean products with lower rest value

Plastic Heroes:additional funding

required from packagingchain restrictions…

Possible actions: cleaning

Standard(legislation)

sampling

compare to standard

take action

River littertransportation

evaluation

litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea

Cleaning

Recovery of products with the lowest rest value is a volunteers’ job!

the real (!)“Plastic Hero”

The problem:

This litter has lost almost all of its value!

Just the calorific value can be used

The most promising approach for river litter is aimed at it’s sources

River litter sources:1. Fly-tipping and illegal dumping in the flood

plain2. Run-off from streets and roadsides in the

catchment area3. Sewage overflows to rivers and tributaries4. Industrial spills (pellets and scrap)

But, research on recovery and cleaning possibilities is necessary

We need to understand the problem

better, find the

sources and the most efficient

interceptions

Conclusions

• The developed river litter sampling method can be used, since significant amounts of river litter have been found, but further scientific research is needed

• The Meuse transports an abundance of macroplastics, rigidsmainly at the surface and flexibles mostly in suspension

• European legislation is critical, otherwise there is no sense of urgency at local level

• Collection and recovery solutions for low value waste products must be developed including appropriate funding systems

• Findings for the Meuse should be extended with research findings in other rivers.

• Funding for further research is needed

Contact:

Waste Free Waters

Ir. Gijsbert TweehuysenLuiperbeekstraat 236343 PT KlimmenThe Netherlands

E-mail: g.tweehuysen@hotmail.comPhone: +31 (0) 653 693 382Blog: www.wastefreewaters.wordpress.com