Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & … › elibrary › Content › Internet › 538 › ...Report Title: Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & Industrial Waste Streams

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB i

Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & Industrial Waste Streams in the North West Region of England For the North West Regional Technical Advisory Board May 2007 Report Produced for: Report written by:

Glyn Jones, Peter Scholes, Mandy Smith

Q.C. Checked by:

Cheshire County Council Backford Hall Backford CHESTER CH1 6PX Mandy Smith

Contact: Status: Andrew Farrow, Environmental Planning Manager

Final Report

Executive Summary

A partnership of Urban Mines, Groundwork and Arete Business Services, has completed a survey of commercial and industrial waste arisings in the North West of England, to generate data which can inform the need for new regional and sub-regional waste facilities, the development of waste planning strategies and to inform waste planning decisions.

Completed between September

2006 and January 2007, the survey collected data from some 981 companies distributed around the region, based on a strict survey matrix defining company size and sector. The majority of data was obtained via face-to-face interviews with the companies selected, with larger companies included via their PPC submissions.

A survey methodology was used

which minimised error and maximised confidence in the data collected, in a

way which was representative of the arisings of the region as a whole. The raw survey data was collected electronically, and cleaned and errors trapped using a number of techniques. The resultant dataset is robust and detailed, and has been used to estimate waste arisings at regional and sub-regional level. The aggregated data is summarised in this report.

* Headlines:

7,532,289 tonnes total

regional arising, of this:

27% non-metallic wastes

24% mixed wastes

19% chemical waste

and 47% is recycled

min 29% is landfilled

The survey looked at all waste

generated on a company’s site that was sent off site for treatment, disposal or recycling. For each such material stream, the waste was classified, annual

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB ii

tonnage recorded, and destination of the waste noted, in terms of disposal, treatment or recycling technique, and also in terms of materials exported from the region. Hazardous wastes were included. The opportunity to recycle or energy recover disposed wastes was also assessed and recorded.

The survey did not include

wastes that were treated, re-used or disposed of on site. Nor did it include agricultural or construction and demolition wastes (C&D) or one off wastes, from for instance refurbishments or site clearances. Companies with less than 5 employees were also excluded, as the statistical sampling methodology is inappropriate for this scale and diversity of business of activity. A projected estimate of these arisings is made on the basis that most of these businesses will be in the retail and other services sectors whilst much of the waste generated by the smallest businesses would be disposed of in the municipal waste stream.

This survey estimated that the commercial and industrial waste arisings in the North West region of England, totalled some 7,532,289 tonnes, with retail, wholesale and other services generating the most waste per sector.

The manufacturing sector producing most waste was textiles, paper and pulp. The survey figures suggest that a significant proportion of this waste is already recycled (estimated 3.6 million tonnes from recycling, land recovery and composting) although landfill is still a popular method of disposal (at least 2.2 million tonnes estimated, which does not include the landfill portion from transfer stations and other similar facilities).

* Up to 3.27 million tonnes of

disposed waste could be

potentially recycled

The data generated also shows a significant opportunity to increase both recycling of and energy recovery from commercial and industrial waste. For instance, a further 3.3 million tonnes has been identified as either recyclable or potentially recyclable.

This report contains a summary of the data generated by this survey, at both regional and sub-regional level, to be used in conjunction with the survey dataset. The report also explains the methodology developed for this survey, and how the survey was delivered.

Peter Scholes

Managing Director

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB iii

Report Title: Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & Industrial Waste Streams in the North West Region of England

Authors: Dr Glyn Jones, Peter Scholes, Mandy Smith

Date: First Draft March-April 2007, Final Draft May 2007, Final Report June 2007

Project Delivery: Peter Scholes, Project Manager Mandy Smith, Data and Systems Glyn Jones, Statistician Jill Sykes, Support and Administration Emma Lavin, Project Manager Groundwork Alison Widdup, Project Manager Arete Business Services

File Reference: O:\goldmine\MailBox\Attach\NorthWestC_ISurveyFinalReport GJ changes.doc

Prepared For: Cheshire County Council, representing the NW RTAB

Contact(s): Andrew Farrow, Cheshire County Council

Funded by: NWRA, NWDA, Regional Local Authorities, and the Environment Agency

Report Status: Final Report

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

Copyright: Urban Mines © 2007

Quality Approvals

Name Signature

Project Director Peter Scholes

Quality Reviewer Mandy Smith

Quality Review Date 4th June, 2007

Urban Mines is Accredited under the Customer First Quality Assurance Standard (2005/7)

The content of this Report is for informational purposes only. Urban Mines assumes no liability for inaccurate or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. The information given should not be taken to imply any recommendation or endorsement by Urban Mines.

Urban Mines Ltd

The Cobbett Centre for Environmental Enterprise Village Street, Norwood Green, Halifax, HX3 8QG

Tel: 01274 699400 Fax: 01274 699410 Email: [email protected] Web: www.urbanmines.org.uk

CONTENTS

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB iv

Executive Summary............................................................................................. i Report Content: 1 Introduction......................................................................................................1

1.1 Need............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Delivery .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Management ....................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Survey Parameters ......................................................................................................... 3

2 Survey Results.................................................................................................5 2.1 Regional Results............................................................................................................. 5 2.2 0-4 Employees.............................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Sub-regional Estimates ................................................................................................. 13

2.3.1 Blackburn with Darwen ........................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Blackpool................................................................................................................ 16 2.3.3 Halton..................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.4 Warrington.............................................................................................................. 20 2.3.5 Cheshire................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.6 Cumbria.................................................................................................................. 24 2.3.7 Greater Manchester................................................................................................ 26 2.3.8 Lancashire.............................................................................................................. 28 2.3.9 Merseyside............................................................................................................. 30

2.4 Other Data.................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.1 Waste Recycling..................................................................................................... 32 2.4.2 Energy Recovery .................................................................................................... 33 2.4.3 Hazardous Waste ................................................................................................... 35 2.4.4 Waste Exports ........................................................................................................ 36 2.4.5 Data Sources.......................................................................................................... 37 2.4.6 Contractors............................................................................................................. 37

2.5 Further Data Analysis and Interpretation ....................................................................... 38 3 Survey Design ...............................................................................................39

3.1 Classifying Companies – Sector and Size ..................................................................... 39 3.2 The Sample Matrix........................................................................................................ 40 3.3 Classifying Waste ......................................................................................................... 42 3.4 The Survey Form .......................................................................................................... 42

4 Survey Delivery..............................................................................................43 4.1 Data Sample Preparation.............................................................................................. 43 4.2 Tele-booking Process ................................................................................................... 43 4.3 Checking Company Data .............................................................................................. 43 4.4 Survey Visit................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 Data Collation ............................................................................................................... 44 4.6 Field Trials.................................................................................................................... 44 4.7 Surveyor and Tele-booker Training ............................................................................... 44 4.8 Monitoring Performance................................................................................................ 45

5 Data Collation and Survey Results ................................................................46 5.1 Data Acquisition and Cleaning ...................................................................................... 46 5.2 Dealing with Outliers ..................................................................................................... 46 5.3 Data Collected v Sample Matrix .................................................................................... 48 5.4 Data Aggregation.......................................................................................................... 48 5.5 Survey Accuracy........................................................................................................... 51

5.5.1 Areas of uncertainty - potential sources of error ...................................................... 51 5.5.2 Confidence Levels .................................................................................................. 53

6 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................54

CONTENTS

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB v

Table of Figures: Figure 1: Companies Surveyed per Sub-Region ....................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Location of Companies Surveyed .............................................................................. 4 Figure 3: Summary Industrial Sectors descriptions ................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Summary Waste Classification descriptions............................................................... 6 Figure 5: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by company size ......................................... 7 Figure 6: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by waste stream.......................................... 7 Figure 7: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by destination.............................................. 8 Figure 8: Estimate of Regional Waste Type against destination ................................................ 8 Figure 9: Regional C&I waste arisings by sector ....................................................................... 9 Figure 10: Regional C&I waste: Sector and substance............................................................ 10 Figure 11: Regional C&I waste: Sector and destination........................................................... 11 Figure 12: Waste Type (SOC) against destination .................................................................. 12 Figure 13: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings .......................................... 14 Figure 14: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream................ 14 Figure 15: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination.................... 15 Figure 16: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of Waste Type by Destination ............................. 15 Figure 17: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings............................................................... 16 Figure 18: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream .................................... 16 Figure 19: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ........................................ 17 Figure 20: Blackpool Estimate of Waste Type by Destination.................................................. 17 Figure 21: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings.................................................................... 18 Figure 22: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream ......................................... 18 Figure 23: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ............................................. 19 Figure 24: Halton Estimate of Waste Type by Destination....................................................... 19 Figure 25: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings............................................................. 20 Figure 26: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream .................................. 20 Figure 27: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ...................................... 21 Figure 28: Warrington Estimate of Waste Type by Destination................................................ 21 Figure 29: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings................................................................ 22 Figure 30: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream ..................................... 22 Figure 31: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ......................................... 23 Figure 32: Cheshire Estimate of Waste Type by Destination................................................... 23 Figure 33: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings................................................................. 24 Figure 34: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream ...................................... 24 Figure 35: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination .......................................... 25 Figure 36: Cumbria Estimate of Waste Type by Destination.................................................... 25 Figure 37: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings............................................... 26 Figure 38: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream..................... 26 Figure 39: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ........................ 27 Figure 40: Greater Manchester Estimate of Waste Type by Destination .................................. 27 Figure 41: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings............................................................. 28 Figure 42: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream .................................. 28 Figure 43: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination ...................................... 29 Figure 44: Lancashire Estimate of Waste Type by Destination................................................ 29 Figure 45: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings............................................................ 30 Figure 46: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream.................................. 30 Figure 47: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination...................................... 31 Figure 48: Merseyside Estimate of Waste Type by Destination ............................................... 31 Figure 49: Recycling Opportunities ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 50: Recycling Opportunities in Tonnes......................................................................... 32 Figure 51: Calorific values of common waste streams............................................................. 33 Figure 52: Recoverable Wastes (by SOC) .............................................................................. 34 Figure 53: Recoverable Wastes (by SOC) in tonnes ............................................................... 34 Figure 54: Proportion of Hazardous Wastes per Industry Sector (survey)................................ 35 Figure 55: Proportion of Hazardous Wastes per Industry Sector (PPC)................................... 36 Figure 56: Waste Exports from the Region ............................................................................. 36 Figure 57: Data Sources......................................................................................................... 37

CONTENTS

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB vi

Figure 58: North West Company Universe, by sector and size................................................ 40 Figure 59: Commercial & Industrial Sector by Local Unit Count............................................... 40 Figure 60: Manufacturing Sector Breakdown by Local Unit Count ........................................... 41 Figure 61: Survey Target Sample Matrix................................................................................. 41 Figure 62: Histogram of survey tonnage per waste stream...................................................... 46 Figure 63: Example Box-Whisker Plot..................................................................................... 47 Figure 64: Actual Delivered Survey Matrix .............................................................................. 48 Figure 65: Actual Coverage per Cell (% of target) ................................................................... 48 Figure 66: PPC Data – by Sectors.......................................................................................... 49 Figure 67: Weights from PPC records..................................................................................... 49 Figure 68: Number of PPC/Survey companies added to cells ................................................. 50 Figure 69: PPC Data Distribution............................................................................................ 50 Appendices: 1. Survey Questions .................................................................................................................. i 2. SIC Codes and Industrial Sectors ..........................................................................................ii 3. SOC matched to Eurostat codes........................................................................................... iii 4. Standard Container Types....................................................................................................iv 5. Conversion Factors .............................................................................................................. v 6. Standard Items.....................................................................................................................vi 7. Example Companies ........................................................................................................... vii

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB 1 1

REPORT

1 Introduction

The North West Regional Technical Advisory Body (NWRTAB) for Waste and the North West Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities have commissioned this survey of commercial and industrial (C&I) wastes for the North West region of England, to provide regional, sub-regional and local information on the amounts of waste produced and managed in 2005/6. The information on waste types and quantities will be used to project what types and size of new facilities will be required for the future management of C&I wastes within the North West Region.

1.1 Need The role of the North West Regional Technical Advisory Body (NWRTAB) is to

assemble relevant waste data and provide advice on options for the management of waste in the region. The recently issued PPS10 and accompanying guidance places a significantly increased burden on the NWRTAB to collect, collate and publish data and information on waste management within the region. This information will be crucial for the development of strategic plans and local development frameworks and also to provide the necessary numeric context to individual planning applications and appeals.

In the development of its annual monitoring reports the RTAB had highlighted major deficiencies in the available information for C&I waste arisings and management methods. The available data was from surveys carried out by the Environment Agency for 1998/99 and 2002/3 respectively. Whilst these surveys achieved a precision of +/- 5% at a 90% confidence level for total industrial and commercial waste, users are advised to treat the information provided as the best estimate from a range and should not, for example, read too much into small differences between sectors or detailed comparisons with results from the previous (1998-9) survey.

The 2002/3 survey shows a 13% reduction in the total C&I waste for the 4 year

period (a fall of 23% in industrial wastes and a slight increase in commercial wastes of 3%). However, the survey had insufficient detail and the categorisation used did not readily translate into the type and scale of new waste management facilities may be needed. The results of these surveys also show a significantly different result to that predicted by the REEIO (Regional Environment-Economy Input-Output) model in a recent report produced by the North West Development Agency.

The level of information that was currently available to the RTAB from was

deemed inadequate to make reasonable projections for what type and capacity of waste management facilities will be required for C&I waste in the future. This information gap could only be filled by the commissioning a North West regional survey of these waste types.1

1 Introduction taken from original Cheshire County Council Tender document


1.2 Delivery Therefore this project, tendered by Cheshire County Council on behalf of the North

West Regional Technical Advisory Board (NWRTAB), is intended to provide detailed information on the production of waste by commercial and industrial companies within the region, to help make reasonable projections for what type and capacity of waste management facilities will be required to meet the Region’s need for dealing with such waste in the future.

This work has been delivered by a partnership between Urban Mines Ltd (Project

Managers), Groundwork Manchester, Salford and Trafford, and Arete Business Services Ltd. The objectives of this work, as laid out in the original tender document, are to:

§ Gather information on current (2005-6) industrial and commercial (C&I)

waste arisings from a representative sample of waste producers2 § Provide information of the current C&I waste arisings such that this

information can be further used to project the requirements for future waste management capacity provision within the NW region

Some direction was provided as to the type of data required from each company survey, including waste classification, quantity and current disposal method, with some measure of wastes leaving the region for treatment or disposal. The tender allowed for inclusion of PPC3 data from the Environment Agency to augment that collected by face-to-face survey. The study area for this survey is represented by the land within the boundaries of the 9 authority areas of:

This report therefore details the methodology used for the delivery of this survey, and the results obtained from its implementation.

2 Agreed with the project Steering Group to be approximately 1,000 companies 3 Data submitted under conditions of a Permit issued under the requirements of the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Regulations

2000

Cumbria County Council Blackpool MBC Lancashire County Council Warrington MBC Cheshire County Council Halton Borough Council The City and Metropolitan Councils of Greater Manchester

Liverpool City and the Metropolitan Councils of Merseyside

Blackburn-with-Darwen MBC


1.3 Project Management

Throughout the development and delivery stages, the project was managed and mentored on behalf of the funders via a Steering Group consisting of the following representatives:

Andrew Farrow, Cheshire County Council (Project Manager) Lynne Rowe, the Environment Agency Sue Bradburne, the Environment Agency James Cook, Merseyside Environment Service Peter Greifenberg, NWRA Technical Consultant

plus representatives of the deliverers, Urban Mines. This group met regularly to review progress and approve key project aspects such as methodology, and received weekly email progress reports from Urban Mines. Much appreciated support was also received from Alan Bell and David Forster at the Environment Agency in Warrington.

1.4 Survey Parameters

The survey of North West based commercial and industrial companies, took place between September 2006 and January 2007. A total of 981 companies were surveyed, selected at random (at a regional and sub-regional level) depending upon their size, sector and location. Of these, 827 were surveyed directly by face-to-face interview by a trained surveyor, collecting data electronically. The remaining companies data was sourced from 2005-6 PPC submissions, supplied by the Environment Agency. The results of this survey are given in this report.

The total numbers of companies visited to collected survey data (ie. not including PPC data) are as follows :

SubRegion SurveyedCheshire 102Cumbria 21Greater Manchester 348Lancashire 189Merseyside 167Total 827

Figure 1: Companies Surveyed per Sub-Region

Plotting the surveyed companies geographically produces the distribution as shown in Figure 2: Location of Companies Surveyed, shown overleaf.


Figure 2: Location of Companies Surveyed


2 Survey Results

2.1 Regional Results The full details of how the survey was designed and delivered, and the final data

aggregated and estimated for individual regions, are presented later in this report. To summarise:

What was Surveyed

• 981 Commercial and Industrial companies within the North West, including retail, representatively distributed by company size, industrial sector and location

• All wastes produced on a company’s site and sent off site for treatment, disposal or recycling, recorded by waste type and annual tonnage produced

• Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes • The waste management method used for each waste e.g. landfill,

recycling etc, and contractor used. This is termed in later tables as “destination”, referred to in earlier EA surveys as “fate”

• The possibility of the waste to be recycled or energy recovered • Waste which was exported from the Region for treatment, disposal or

recycling

What was NOT Surveyed

• Companies with less than 5 employees (see 2.2) • Agricultural, construction and demolition (C&D) waste • One-off wastes e.g. refurbishments or site clearances • Waste which would not have an impact on external treatment or

recycling facilities .g. waste landfilled on site, or waste recycled or re-used on site.

Using the methods described later in this report, the grossed up estimate as shown in Figure 5: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by company size, of total commercial and industrial waste arisings in the North West was produced, from data produced from both face-to-face survey and from Environment Agency PPC data. Regional waste arisings per industrial and commercial sector are summarised in the chart following as Figure 9: Regional C&I waste arisings by sector.

By combining the survey and PPC data, the proportion of each waste type by SIC sector was calculated and applied to the estimated total for each sector, with results presented in Figure 6: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by waste stream. Similarly, regional waste destination, by disposal route, was calculated and given in Figure 7: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by destination.

Note that in this case, the destination of the waste stream recorded was that known by the company representative being interviewed. Therefore “landfill” records material he/she knows goes directly to landfill. We would expect, however, significant volumes from other destinations “transfer station”, “treatment plant”


and other categories, to also go eventually to landfill, without the knowledge of the person being interviewed. Similar data interpretation is given in the other figures that follow. In the figures the following terminology is used:

Company Sector

A full description of Industrial Sector descriptions used is given in Appendix 2. These can be summarised as:

Sector Description C or I*

Food, drink and tobacco Food, drink and tobacco manufacturers I

Textiles/wood/ paper/publishing

Includes manufactures of textiles, wearing apparel, luggage, handbags and footwear; also wood and wood products, pulp, paper and paper products, publishing and printing.

I

Power & Utilities Production of gas, electricity, oil and water I Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing

Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products, cleaning products, manmade fibres, rubber and plastic products, and non-metallic mineral products

I

Metal manufacturing Manufacture of basic metals and fabricated metal products I

Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing)

Manufacturing of machinery and equipment, of computers, electrical and communication equipment, including medical and optical instruments. Also manufacturers of motor vehicles, and of furniture and other manufacturing.

I

Retail & wholesale Retail and wholesale including of motor vehicles and fuel C

Other services Includes hotels, catering, transport, storage, communications, travel agents, finance, estate agents, IT related activities, and other business.

C

Public sector Includes public administration, social work, and education. C * C=Commercial, I=Industrial sector

Figure 3: Summary Industrial Sectors descriptions Waste Type

The SOC (Substance Orientated Classification) nomenclature is used for waste classification, as explained in Appendix 3. This can be summarised as:

Waste Group Included Wastes Chemical Wastes Solvents, acids/alkalis, used oil, catalysts, wastes from

chemical preparation, residues and sludges Healthcare Healthcare wastes Metallic Wastes Metallic wastes Non-Metallic Wastes Glass, paper & card, rubber, plastic, wood, textiles Discarded equipment End of life vehicles (ELV) , batteries, waste electronics

(WEEE) other discarded equipment Animal & Vegetable Wastes

Food, manure, other animal and vegetable wastes

Mixed (ordinary) wastes

Household, undifferentiated wastes and sorting residues

Common Sludges Sludges (common) and dredgings Mineral Wastes Combustion residues, contaminated soils, solidified

mineral wastes, other mineral wastes Figure 4: Summary Waste Classification descriptions Annual regional waste arisings estimates are summarised in the following figures:

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB 7

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 10,354 5,474 24,815 37,686 245,076 223,652 547,057 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 46,027 68,756 104,745 150,744 292,901 435,535 1,098,709 Power & Utilities 4 240,305 4,938 16,233 13,935 3,362 278,775 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 32,526 19,304 181,063 143,072 252,486 209,354 837,806 Metal manufacturing 22,270 26,903 39,122 333,757 177,379 8,576 608,007 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 10,888 46,484 44,328 43,412 72,988 135,417 353,517 Retail & wholesale 226,065 154,862 469,297 271,826 150,838 80,589 1,353,477 Other services 130,027 198,063 260,106 1,010,207 113,044 137,103 1,848,550 Public sector 15,829 45,247 219,657 61,331 50,715 213,613 606,392 Total 493,988 805,398 1,348,071 2,068,267 1,369,362 1,447,202 7,532,289

Employee Sizebands

Figure 5: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by company size

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment

Health careMetallic wastes

Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 362,328 19,955 33,921 35 17 6,978 2,263 70,007 51,553 547,057 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 299 423,223 62,354 91 0 20,844 1,129 204,615 386,155 1,098,709 Power & Utilities - 50,195 197,365 144 2 1,398 24,609 4,209 854 278,775 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 637 527,132 2,808 391 122 14,531 130,971 98,119 63,094 837,806 Metal manufacturing 1 65,625 884 2,104 3 110,220 388,117 28,433 12,619 608,007 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 10,936 49,125 1,724 8,965 9 62,617 627 103,972 115,543 353,517 Retail & wholesale 36,779 80,920 165 25,275 479 201,432 853 477,736 529,838 1,353,477 Other services 24,267 202,102 48,594 6,610 1,258 302,291 3,478 513,478 746,472 1,848,550 Public sector 41,825 251 - 8,628 83,410 501 8 335,588 136,182 606,392 Total 477,071 1,418,527 347,816 52,243 85,300 720,812 552,055 1,836,156 2,042,309 7,532,289

Waste type (Substance Orientated Classification)

Figure 6: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by waste stream


Composting Don't knowIncineration with Energy Recovery

Incineration without Energy

Recovery

Land Recovery

Landfill RecyclingTransfer Station

Treatment Plant

Waste Water Treatment

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 30,629 10,567 7,106 11,411 139,546 142,389 131,808 19,929 53,673 547,057 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 17,672 12,383 412 1,596 505,875 218,957 310,977 23,675 6,497 664 1,098,709 Power & Utilities 30,874 485 514 230,796 2,750 1,868 11,488 278,775 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 1,008 24,045 25,336 27,806 1,648 420,874 109,021 27,378 186,504 14,186 837,806 Metal manufacturing 1,050 10,926 642 684 229,811 35,721 310,821 4,038 14,313 608,007 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 777 16,211 1,850 1,106 90,588 210,569 25,214 7,201 353,517 Retail & wholesale 3,899 199,465 490 60,734 234,915 711,074 121,220 21,679 1,353,477 Other services 174,439 207 3,998 446,168 837,437 116,611 269,520 171 1,848,550 Public sector 76,490 12,149 51,982 378,187 33,254 45,682 8,648 606,392 Total 55,036 555,400 48,679 159,830 876,880 2,198,595 2,657,711 385,615 579,523 15,021 7,532,289 Figure 7: Estimate of Regional C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes 11,455 38,799 25,716 31,904 401,630 277,356 178,460 16,996 421,361 14,850 1,418,527 Health care - 3,582 12,093 52,534 - 8,649 - 1 8,441 - 85,300 Metallic wastes - 2,974 - - - 1,052 714,681 484 1,620 - 720,812 Non-metallic wastes 8,828 57,762 461 63,022 57,429 307,408 1,428,762 39,573 79,066 - 2,042,309 Discarded equipment - 3,848 69 70 - 4,704 39,649 3,445 458 - 52,243 Animal & vegetable wastes 34,753 20,539 8,756 10,490 135,343 137,287 67,724 8,920 53,258 - 477,071 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 401,670 1,584 1,810 - 1,064,402 43,746 312,581 10,362 - 1,836,156 Common sludges - 2,206 - - 52,667 261,432 27,757 105 3,478 171 347,816 Mineral wastes - 24,020 - - 229,811 136,305 156,933 3,509 1,478 - 552,055 Total 55,036 555,400 48,679 159,830 876,880 2,198,595 2,657,711 385,615 579,523 15,021 7,532,289

Figure 8: Estimate of Regional Waste Type against destination


7%

15%

4%

11%

8%

5%

18%

24%

8%

Food, drink, tobacco

Textiles/wood/paper/publishing

Power & Utilities

Chemical/non-metallic minerals

Metal manufacturing

Machinery & equipment

Retail & wholesale

Other services

Public sector

Figure 9: Regional C&I waste arisings by sector


-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Food

, drin

k, tob

acco

Textil

es/w

ood/p

aper/

publis

hing

Power

& Utilit

ies

Chem

ical/n

on-m

etallic

mine

rals

Meta

l man

ufactu

ring

Machin

ery & eq

uipmen

t

Retail &

who

lesale

Other s

ervice

s

Public

secto

r

Non-metallic wastesMixed (ordinary) wastesMineral wastesMetallic wastes

Health careDiscarded equipmentCommon sludgesChemical wastes

Animal & vegetable wastes

Figure 10: Regional C&I waste: Sector and substance


-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Food

, drin

k, tob

acco

Textil

es/w

ood/p

aper/

publish

ing

Power

& Utilit

ies

Chem

ical/n

on-m

etallic

mine

rals

Metal m

anufa

cturin

g

Machin

ery & eq

uipmen

t

Retail &

who

lesale

Other s

ervice

s

Public

secto

r

Waste Water TreatmentTreatment PlantTransfer StationRecyclingLandfillLand RecoveryIncineration without Energy RecoveryIncineration with Energy RecoveryDon't knowComposting

Figure 11: Regional C&I waste: Sector and destination


-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Chemica

l was

tes

Health

care

Metallic

was

tes

Non-m

etallic

was

tes

Disca

rded e

quipm

ent

Anim

al & ve

getab

le was

tes

Mixed (

ordina

ry) w

astes

Common

sludg

es

Mineral

was

tes

Waste Water TreatmentTreatment PlantTransfer StationRecyclingLandfillLand RecoveryIncineration without Energy RecoveryIncineration with Energy RecoveryDon't knowComposting

Figure 12: Waste Type (SOC) against destination


2.2 0-4 Employees

As mentioned earlier, companies with less than 5 employees were not included in the survey. This was similarly the case in previous Environment Agency surveys in which the 0-3 employee band was included through estimated projections. Analysis of this business grouping indicated the statistical sampling for this scale and diversity of business of activity would be inherently unreliable. The data from the Office of National Statistics shows that 126,365 companies are in this size band with over 85% of these in the Retail/Wholesale and Other Services SIC sectors.

Simply applying the average tonnage per employee of the 5-9 band (using the middle of the band width as the average number of employees per company) suggests a total tonnage for this size band of around 585,000 tonnes with 76% of this from the two largest sub-sectors. This result is particularly sensitive to the tonnes per employee figure used. For example, an increase in the tonnes per employee of 0.5 tonnes for the “Other Services” sector increases the total estimate by over 70,000 tonnes.

However many of the waste generating businesses within the services sector will also be in building and allied trades which essential fall within the remit of construction and demolition waste whilst much of the waste generated by the smallest businesses would be disposed of in the municipal waste stream. It is likely therefore that the quantity of C&I waste which would be disposed of through the mainstream commercial and industrial waste facilities is significantly lower than the applied projection.

2.3 Sub-regional Estimates

The ONS data used to calculate sub-regional estimates provides cell data to the nearest 5 companies. This means that some cells are unpopulated when one or two companies are present, resulting in an estimate of zero waste when some may be present. Using such data requires local knowledge to assess such data gaps. Further, the ONS process of no-disclosure means that the sum of the sub-regional estimates may differ from the regional estimates above.

For those PPC companies with disproportionately large waste arisings that were added in the regional estimation method have been added to the appropriate sub-region here. The following Figures show:

Estimate of C&I waste arisings Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination Estimate of C&I waste type by destination

For the following Sub-Regions:

Blackburn with Darwen Blackpool Halton Warrington Cheshire Cumbria Greater Manchester Merseyside


2.3.1 Blackburn with Darwen

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 167 - 395 - 4,916 - 5,479 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 1,674 604 2,572 11,306 37,573 21,594 75,322 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 428 689 7,988 7,337 8,416 20,935 45,794 Metal manufacturing 384 841 1,242 3,842 11,617 - 17,925 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 252 1,499 2,262 3,859 2,019 - 9,891 Retail & wholesale 4,954 2,800 8,691 7,060 2,186 1,791 27,482 Other services 2,329 2,576 4,311 20,340 2,043 1,714 33,312 Public sector 399 1,327 4,800 1,675 1,615 5,696 15,512 Total 10,586 10,336 32,261 55,419 70,386 51,731 230,717

Employee Sizebands

Figure 13: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 1,586 17 1,692 1 1 47 74 837 1,223 5,479 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 26 24,519 1,981 8 - 1,382 70 15,515 31,820 75,322 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 28 27,478 158 30 12 861 8,314 5,594 3,320 45,794 Metal manufacturing 0 2,437 43 75 0 6,228 7,333 1,277 532 17,925 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 125 2,289 16 219 0 765 13 3,218 3,244 9,891 Retail & wholesale 713 1,590 4 467 10 4,718 18 9,497 10,464 27,482 Other services 439 3,969 978 112 22 6,032 57 8,524 13,180 33,312 Public sector 936 7 - 237 2,247 14 0 8,753 3,318 15,512 Total 3,853 62,306 4,873 1,150 2,292 20,047 15,881 53,215 67,100 230,717


Figure 14: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 554 427 0 135 - 795 2,526 776 265 5,479 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 347 563 29 0 25,917 18,959 26,669 1,953 835 50 75,322 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 55 961 1,157 1,563 55 23,916 5,762 1,323 10,329 673 45,794 Metal manufacturing 105 295 37 20 - 1,646 15,205 117 500 17,925 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 24 597 51 36 2,435 5,753 806 188 9,891 Retail & wholesale 67 3,848 11 1,126 4,878 14,602 2,464 485 27,482 Other services 2,740 4 75 7,849 15,342 1,947 5,352 3 33,312 Public sector 1,895 339 1,392 9,384 934 1,338 229 15,512 Total 1,153 11,327 1,628 4,348 25,971 69,862 86,794 10,725 18,184 726 230,717 Figure 15: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 195 1,139 1,605 23,258 12,380 6,776 700 15,530 723 62,306 Health care - 93 338 1,411 - 225 - 0 225 - 2,292 Metallic wastes - 67 - - - 14 19,899 14 52 - 20,047 Non-metallic wastes 520 1,015 31 1,166 2,714 10,039 48,940 1,061 1,614 - 67,100 Discarded equipment - 100 2 1 - 170 770 97 10 - 1,150 Animal & vegetable wastes 633 491 53 112 - 1,620 244 520 179 - 3,853 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 8,404 66 52 - 34,871 1,195 8,270 357 - 53,215 Common sludges - 101 - - - 3,005 1,615 2 147 3 4,873 Mineral wastes - 861 - - - 7,538 7,353 60 68 - 15,881 Total 1,153 11,327 1,628 4,348 25,971 69,862 86,794 10,725 18,184 726 230,717 Figure 16: Blackburn with Darwen Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.2 Blackpool

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 334 148 395 - - - 877 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 558 - 643 3,769 - - 4,969 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing - 345 2,663 - - - 3,007 Metal manufacturing 192 280 - - - - 472 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 126 750 - - - - 876 Retail & wholesale 5,493 3,389 9,560 5,295 2,186 - 25,923 Other services 2,924 5,016 5,173 16,950 2,043 1,714 33,820 Public sector 399 981 3,886 1,675 1,615 2,848 11,403 Total 10,026 10,909 22,320 27,688 5,844 4,562 81,348

Employee Sizebands

Figure 17: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 103 1 - 0 - 24 74 385 291 877 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 2 61 - 0 - 132 11 2,009 2,755 4,969 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing - 2,059 7 0 - 46 375 283 237 3,007 Metal manufacturing - 23 7 0 - 294 42 70 36 472 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) - 2 - 0 - 85 6 402 381 876 Retail & wholesale 671 1,518 3 525 11 3,989 10 9,452 9,745 25,923 Other services 441 3,502 816 124 27 5,115 69 9,932 13,796 33,820 Public sector 771 3 - 157 1,437 13 0 6,391 2,630 11,403 Total 1,987 7,170 833 807 1,474 9,698 587 28,923 29,869 81,348


Figure 18: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco - 111 - 52 - 367 264 82 0 877 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing - 135 0 - - 1,927 2,785 87 17 17 4,969 Power & Utilities - - - - - - - - Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing - 290 246 11 - 1,111 306 188 852 2 3,007 Metal manufacturing - 61 0 - - 58 318 16 20 472 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) - 42 0 18 380 415 14 6 876 Retail & wholesale 78 4,105 11 1,237 4,527 13,166 2,493 305 25,923 Other services 3,933 4 71 8,027 14,833 2,340 4,610 3 33,820 Public sector 1,665 323 816 6,734 730 1,017 118 11,403 Total 78 10,342 585 2,206 - 23,132 32,818 6,238 5,928 22 81,348 Figure 19: Blackpool Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 107 247 73 - 855 1,440 107 4,324 18 7,170 Health care - 93 322 826 - 119 - 0 115 - 1,474 Metallic wastes - 51 - - - 13 9,605 5 25 - 9,698 Non-metallic wastes - 1,301 1 1,263 - 4,921 20,299 759 1,326 - 29,869 Discarded equipment - 68 1 1 - 53 629 48 7 - 807 Animal & vegetable wastes 78 334 2 23 - 1,380 169 1 - - 1,987 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 8,103 12 20 - 14,751 659 5,249 129 - 28,923 Common sludges - - - - - 819 7 - 3 3 833 Mineral wastes - 286 - - - 222 11 68 0 - 587 Total 78 10,342 585 2,206 - 23,132 32,818 6,238 5,928 22 81,348 Figure 20: Blackpool Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.3 Halton

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 167 148 - - - - 315 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 558 241 643 - - - 1,442 Power & Utilities - 209,563 - - - - 209,563 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 1,712 345 7,988 14,674 25,249 - 49,967 Metal manufacturing 192 560 621 3,842 - - 5,216 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 126 750 1,357 1,929 2,019 - 6,181 Retail & wholesale 3,446 2,358 6,083 5,295 4,372 1,791 23,346 Other services 1,895 3,254 3,449 20,340 3,405 3,428 35,770 Public sector 219 693 4,114 1,047 969 2,848 9,890 Total 8,316 217,911 24,256 47,127 36,014 8,067 341,690

Employee Sizebands

Figure 21: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 16 1 - 0 - 8 - 120 170 315 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 2 10 - 0 - 113 - 567 750 1,442 Power & Utilities - - 196,082 - - - 13,481 - - 209,563 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 61 33,368 153 13 0 824 5,950 5,654 3,944 49,967 Metal manufacturing - 1,994 13 74 0 1,140 1,292 490 213 5,216 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 125 1,261 15 207 0 526 8 2,087 1,951 6,181 Retail & wholesale 734 1,189 3 362 7 3,617 20 7,773 9,640 23,346 Other services 526 4,010 977 134 19 6,032 47 9,830 14,195 35,770 Public sector 784 3 - 130 1,242 9 0 5,317 2,404 9,890 Total 2,247 41,836 197,244 922 1,269 12,269 20,798 31,839 33,267 341,690


Figure 22: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco - 52 - 19 - 61 131 51 0 315 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 62 105 0 - - 429 719 121 6 - 1,442 Power & Utilities - - - 209,563 - - - 209,563 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 82 1,135 1,430 1,341 165 24,515 7,326 1,366 11,167 1,441 49,967 Metal manufacturing - 171 5 15 - 755 3,882 84 303 5,216 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 24 417 51 18 1,462 3,482 547 181 6,181 Retail & wholesale 72 2,854 8 788 4,261 12,956 2,008 399 23,346 Other services 2,865 6 98 8,989 16,223 2,182 5,404 2 35,770 Public sector 1,379 227 747 6,156 542 723 116 9,890 Total 240 8,978 1,727 3,027 165 256,191 45,260 7,082 17,577 1,443 341,690 Figure 23: Halton Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 116 1,382 1,406 165 15,629 5,856 509 15,333 1,441 41,836 Health care - 61 226 754 - 116 - 0 113 - 1,269 Metallic wastes - 50 - - - 14 12,140 23 42 - 12,269 Non-metallic wastes 145 929 5 818 - 5,413 23,692 675 1,590 - 33,267 Discarded equipment - 62 1 1 - 116 673 59 9 - 922 Animal & vegetable wastes 95 292 52 13 - 1,398 321 2 74 - 2,247 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 6,513 61 35 - 18,221 1,019 5,764 225 - 31,839 Common sludges - 28 - - - 197,158 7 1 47 2 197,244 Mineral wastes - 927 - - - 18,125 1,553 49 144 - 20,798 Total 240 8,978 1,727 3,027 165 256,191 45,260 7,082 17,577 1,443 341,690 Figure 24: Halton Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.4 Warrington

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco - 148 395 2,692 - - 3,235 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 837 121 1,286 - 5,946 - 8,190 Power & Utilities - - - 5,411 - - 5,411 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 428 345 5,325 - 8,416 - 14,514 Metal manufacturing 768 1,121 1,242 - 11,617 - 14,747 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 441 1,125 1,809 965 2,019 - 6,358 Retail & wholesale 6,893 5,305 19,120 12,356 6,558 3,582 53,813 Other services 3,953 7,456 9,772 50,849 6,129 10,283 88,442 Public sector 419 923 5,714 1,465 1,615 5,696 15,833 Total 13,738 16,543 44,664 73,738 42,300 19,561 210,544

Employee Sizebands

Figure 25: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 1,398 54 - 0 - 45 90 1,005 644 3,235 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 4 77 - 2 - 408 19 3,332 4,348 8,190 Power & Utilities - 1,210 64 2 0 225 3,375 477 58 5,411 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 13 9,756 56 4 0 234 2,313 1,237 902 14,514 Metal manufacturing 0 584 50 1 - 6,347 6,168 1,127 471 14,747 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 125 753 15 202 0 540 22 2,285 2,416 6,358 Retail & wholesale 1,338 3,163 8 967 17 8,673 38 18,307 21,302 53,813 Other services 1,172 9,957 2,444 308 46 15,094 133 23,868 35,421 88,442 Public sector 1,100 7 - 215 2,245 14 0 8,725 3,527 15,833 Total 5,149 25,561 2,636 1,702 2,309 31,579 12,158 60,362 69,088 210,544


Figure 26: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 750 87 3 24 - 1,313 921 133 4 3,235 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 127 194 13 0 441 3,028 3,962 410 13 - 8,190 Power & Utilities 44 59 0 4,060 455 - 793 5,411 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 12 607 598 202 55 8,378 1,680 425 2,454 103 14,514 Metal manufacturing 105 355 37 8 - 1,146 12,694 96 306 14,747 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 24 463 51 27 1,654 3,469 487 184 6,358 Retail & wholesale 142 7,885 16 2,475 8,740 29,424 4,319 811 53,813 Other services 6,591 11 206 22,245 40,851 5,098 13,435 6 88,442 Public sector 2,044 350 1,388 9,741 944 1,134 230 15,833 Total 1,160 18,269 1,140 4,331 496 60,306 94,401 12,101 18,231 110 210,544 Figure 27: Warrington Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 226 642 390 55 6,173 4,129 297 13,546 103 25,561 Health care - 94 349 1,406 - 236 - 0 225 - 2,309 Metallic wastes - 123 - - - 27 31,354 18 58 - 31,579 Non-metallic wastes 269 2,013 16 2,495 441 9,565 49,264 1,059 3,966 - 69,088 Discarded equipment - 116 2 4 - 52 1,419 93 17 - 1,702 Animal & vegetable wastes 892 782 55 2 - 2,445 890 7 77 - 5,149 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 14,217 76 36 - 33,898 1,366 10,498 269 - 60,362 Common sludges - 9 - - - 2,557 7 0 55 6 2,636 Mineral wastes - 689 - - - 5,353 5,971 128 18 - 12,158 Total 1,160 18,269 1,140 4,331 496 60,306 94,401 12,101 18,231 110 210,544 Figure 28: Warrington Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.5 Cheshire

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 668 592 1,581 2,692 9,832 20,332 35,697 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 4,463 56,319 5,143 7,537 17,839 263,847 355,148 Power & Utilities 1 5,124 549 - - 1,121 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 4,280 1,379 15,976 11,006 25,249 41,871 99,760 Metal manufacturing 1,728 1,681 1,863 15,369 11,617 - 32,258 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 1,133 4,873 3,619 1,929 12,413 9,028 32,995 Retail & wholesale 27,248 19,008 49,537 22,946 17,488 8,954 145,182 Other services 15,001 23,453 31,615 108,479 11,577 11,996 202,121 Public sector 1,316 3,809 21,943 5,442 5,168 19,937 57,616 Total 55,838 116,238 131,826 175,400 111,183 377,086 967,571

Employee Sizebands

Figure 29: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 17,472 1,802 3,853 4 2 640 316 6,605 5,004 35,697 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 33 289,197 1,981 11 - 2,490 79 25,282 36,077 355,148 Power & Utilities - 5,952 - 43 1 132 112 419 135 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 62 60,117 365 64 24 1,808 18,450 11,872 6,999 99,760 Metal manufacturing 0 8,228 63 297 0 8,833 11,329 2,414 1,094 32,258 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 6,359 2,743 782 570 1 4,303 60 8,084 10,094 32,995 Retail & wholesale 4,349 8,851 14 2,835 53 18,866 88 52,835 57,292 145,182 Other services 2,656 21,889 5,221 734 146 32,580 420 56,432 82,043 202,121 Public sector 4,180 23 - 792 7,884 49 1 31,479 13,207 57,616 Total 35,112 398,802 12,278 5,348 8,111 69,700 30,855 195,422 211,944 967,571


Figure 30: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 2,519 1,135 4 378 382 13,350 11,690 2,082 4,159 35,697 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 1,701 947 43 1 289,840 28,285 30,837 2,604 858 33 355,148 Power & Utilities 5,126 15 - 771 269 600 13 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 111 2,227 2,374 3,905 165 53,854 12,201 2,978 20,784 1,162 99,760 Metal manufacturing 105 807 43 58 - 3,682 25,986 325 1,252 32,258 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 49 1,144 117 115 13,386 15,032 2,680 472 32,995 Retail & wholesale 472 21,440 56 6,408 26,410 73,918 14,015 2,463 145,182 Other services 20,321 21 422 47,977 91,255 13,053 29,051 21 202,121 Public sector 7,438 1,208 4,891 35,905 3,212 4,155 806 57,616 Total 4,956 60,584 3,880 16,178 290,386 223,621 264,399 42,493 59,857 1,216 967,571 Figure 31: Cheshire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes 985 5,883 2,366 4,245 286,850 31,571 18,785 2,047 44,875 1,195 398,802 Health care - 339 1,203 4,962 - 821 - 0 786 - 8,111 Metallic wastes - 278 - - - 104 69,130 46 142 - 69,700 Non-metallic wastes 963 6,553 49 6,534 3,155 33,482 147,689 5,047 8,472 - 211,944 Discarded equipment - 376 7 8 - 552 4,021 339 46 - 5,348 Animal & vegetable wastes 3,008 2,363 109 280 - 19,116 5,202 1,047 3,987 - 35,112 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 42,373 146 149 - 113,374 4,734 33,532 1,114 - 195,422 Common sludges - 245 - - 382 7,941 3,379 7 304 21 12,278 Mineral wastes - 2,176 - - - 16,660 11,459 429 131 - 30,855 Total 4,956 60,584 3,880 16,178 290,386 223,621 264,399 42,493 59,857 1,216 967,571 Figure 32: Cheshire Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.6 Cumbria

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 835 592 1,581 5,384 124,368 20,332 153,091 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 2,511 724 3,215 7,537 11,892 21,594 47,473 Power & Utilities 0 5,124 1,097 - 6,967 - 13,189 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 2,140 1,724 10,651 3,669 8,416 20,935 47,534 Metal manufacturing 1,152 1,681 2,484 237,701 11,617 - 254,635 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 441 1,499 1,809 1,929 4,038 9,028 18,745 Retail & wholesale 20,356 12,672 35,632 19,416 8,744 3,582 100,401 Other services 11,102 15,997 21,268 71,189 4,767 1,714 126,037 Public sector 1,535 4,963 15,086 3,558 3,230 11,393 39,765 Total 40,071 44,976 92,823 350,383 184,040 88,578 800,871

Employee Sizebands

Figure 33: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 129,796 1,871 5,545 5 3 714 332 8,104 6,721 153,091 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 27 1,278 1,981 8 - 1,531 59 12,217 30,371 47,473 Power & Utilities - 11,447 546 3 - 143 222 710 118 13,189 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 22 28,351 179 30 12 858 8,827 5,769 3,486 47,534 Metal manufacturing 0 4,548 81 149 0 8,341 238,549 2,091 875 254,635 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 309 2,723 65 564 0 3,859 29 5,408 5,788 18,745 Retail & wholesale 2,734 6,069 12 1,966 39 14,777 50 36,491 38,263 100,401 Other services 1,518 14,341 3,426 411 102 21,336 280 33,770 50,852 126,037 Public sector 2,860 13 - 645 4,835 33 0 21,687 9,691 39,765 Total 137,267 70,643 11,835 3,783 4,992 51,590 248,348 126,247 146,165 800,871


Figure 34: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 3,822 1,564 7 683 97,651 14,911 27,056 2,970 4,427 153,091 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 378 625 30 0 2,714 15,506 25,297 2,057 833 33 47,473 Power & Utilities 5,122 128 257 2,868 245 34 4,536 13,189 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 44 1,434 1,397 1,846 55 24,762 5,719 1,699 10,189 391 47,534 Metal manufacturing 105 655 47 39 229,811 2,648 20,197 241 892 254,635 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 49 867 116 36 4,280 11,578 1,376 443 18,745 Retail & wholesale 297 15,348 42 4,611 17,927 51,002 9,657 1,518 100,401 Other services 13,809 9 232 28,322 56,528 8,079 19,045 14 126,037 Public sector 5,320 784 3,002 24,309 2,023 3,855 472 39,765 Total 4,695 44,743 2,559 10,706 330,231 135,533 199,644 29,968 42,355 438 800,871 Figure 35: Cumbria Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 5,686 1,530 2,302 55 17,585 11,802 1,025 30,235 424 70,643 Health care - 228 780 3,048 - 477 - 0 459 - 4,992 Metallic wastes - 206 - - - 78 51,186 24 96 - 51,590 Non-metallic wastes 570 4,658 32 4,663 2,714 24,437 100,130 3,399 5,562 - 146,165 Discarded equipment - 229 5 5 - 438 2,866 211 29 - 3,783 Animal & vegetable wastes 4,125 1,865 108 573 97,269 10,604 17,069 1,559 4,096 - 137,267 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 30,145 104 115 - 68,191 3,153 23,457 1,083 - 126,247 Common sludges - 318 - - 382 5,528 4,837 7 750 14 11,835 Mineral wastes - 1,407 - - 229,811 8,196 8,602 286 46 - 248,348 Total 4,695 44,743 2,559 10,706 330,231 135,533 199,644 29,968 42,355 438 800,871 Figure 36: Cumbria Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.7 Greater Manchester

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 3,841 1,480 12,928 16,151 24,581 101,660 160,641 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 20,364 6,158 61,703 71,603 71,354 43,188 274,371 Power & Utilities 1 10,247 2,194 5,411 - 1,121 18,974 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 12,411 7,928 74,555 66,033 92,578 62,806 316,313 Metal manufacturing 10,175 12,331 18,630 30,738 34,850 4,288 111,011 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 4,531 21,742 18,998 20,259 22,211 63,195 150,936 Retail & wholesale 83,038 58,350 190,326 114,732 63,396 34,027 543,867 Other services 51,339 76,188 103,755 437,304 48,350 70,265 787,202 Public sector 5,502 14,717 81,143 21,141 17,120 82,597 222,221 Total 191,202 209,141 564,233 783,373 374,440 463,147 2,585,535

Employee Sizebands

Figure 37: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 90,338 8,969 10,803 12 5 2,972 631 27,873 19,037 160,641 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 117 4,109 3,962 36 - 8,373 431 83,168 174,175 274,371 Power & Utilities - 13,329 64 48 1 421 3,821 1,039 251 18,974 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 253 201,857 984 128 37 5,399 45,590 37,421 24,645 316,313 Metal manufacturing 0 21,564 359 645 1 42,316 30,117 11,156 4,852 111,011 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 1,788 22,012 414 3,414 4 28,048 259 44,254 50,743 150,936 Retail & wholesale 14,355 32,333 70 9,977 186 83,328 360 189,267 213,991 543,867 Other services 10,250 86,768 21,030 2,777 503 130,532 1,395 216,875 317,072 787,202 Public sector 15,379 97 - 3,106 31,233 174 3 122,877 49,351 222,221 Total 132,481 391,038 37,686 20,143 31,971 301,563 82,607 733,931 854,117 2,585,535


Figure 38: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 10,573 3,317 20 1,208 2,876 60,689 46,604 6,687 28,667 160,641 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 2,735 5,357 169 3 41,656 85,308 127,211 9,574 2,042 315 274,371 Power & Utilities 10,291 88 0 6,336 853 600 805 18,974 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 398 9,844 10,237 10,285 604 151,403 42,167 10,853 74,264 6,258 316,313 Metal manufacturing 315 4,853 258 274 - 12,765 85,290 1,691 5,564 111,011 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 267 6,489 665 517 36,806 93,400 10,111 2,681 150,936 Retail & wholesale 1,510 79,880 186 24,633 92,274 290,084 46,755 8,546 543,867 Other services 69,080 89 1,711 192,568 359,248 48,275 116,164 68 787,202 Public sector 27,440 4,241 19,663 139,804 12,060 15,680 3,333 222,221 Total 15,799 216,550 15,953 58,294 45,136 777,953 1,056,917 150,225 242,067 6,641 2,585,535 Figure 39: Greater Manchester Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 13,665 10,307 11,866 604 102,321 69,169 6,698 169,834 6,573 391,038 Health care - 1,271 4,220 19,871 - 3,352 - 0 3,256 - 31,971 Metallic wastes - 1,253 - - - 443 298,990 195 681 - 301,563 Non-metallic wastes 3,612 22,634 201 25,229 41,656 118,430 593,865 14,262 34,229 - 854,117 Discarded equipment - 1,467 25 30 - 1,471 15,632 1,330 187 - 20,143 Animal & vegetable wastes 12,187 8,113 594 911 966 53,766 24,627 2,644 28,673 - 132,481 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 157,402 605 387 - 430,895 17,219 123,657 3,765 - 733,931 Common sludges - 727 - - 1,910 25,951 8,166 49 814 68 37,686 Mineral wastes - 10,018 - - - 41,324 29,250 1,390 625 - 82,607 Total 15,799 216,550 15,953 58,294 45,136 777,953 1,056,917 150,225 242,067 6,641 2,585,535 Figure 40: Greater Manchester Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.8 Lancashire

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 1,670 1,184 2,372 5,384 66,630 40,664 117,904 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 8,648 2,777 21,825 37,686 136,404 63,718 271,058 Power & Utilities 1 5,124 549 - - 1,121 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 6,420 3,447 26,627 18,343 42,081 41,871 138,788 Metal manufacturing 3,840 4,764 6,210 26,896 84,447 4,288 130,444 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 2,203 7,497 8,142 7,718 18,172 36,111 79,843 Retail & wholesale 35,541 24,754 75,609 42,362 24,047 12,536 214,850 Other services 19,496 27,791 35,639 138,988 16,344 10,283 248,541 Public sector 2,592 8,599 37,943 9,629 6,460 37,026 102,249 Total 80,409 85,938 214,915 287,005 394,586 247,618 1,310,471

Employee Sizebands

Figure 41: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 85,020 3,599 6,014 6 3 1,244 484 12,505 9,027 117,904 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 49 102,571 50,467 16 0 4,076 390 44,968 68,521 271,058 Power & Utilities - 5,952 - 43 1 132 112 419 135 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 99 85,807 505 73 24 2,430 23,246 16,337 10,268 138,788 Metal manufacturing 0 17,280 159 565 1 22,345 81,521 5,796 2,777 130,444 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 1,361 11,130 273 2,454 2 15,922 137 23,613 24,951 79,843 Retail & wholesale 5,810 12,916 26 4,054 76 31,694 134 75,983 84,157 214,850 Other services 3,358 27,848 6,686 891 180 41,544 472 67,888 99,673 248,541 Public sector 7,126 43 - 1,508 13,916 75 1 56,407 23,172 102,249 Total 102,823 267,148 64,129 9,612 14,203 119,462 106,496 303,916 322,682 1,310,471


Figure 42: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 4,483 1,897 7,056 8,203 37,873 25,753 21,105 3,480 8,053 117,904 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 11,664 3,088 97 1,591 142,595 45,560 61,245 4,050 1,003 166 271,058 Power & Utilities 5,126 15 - 771 270 600 13 6,794 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 158 3,722 3,893 4,967 275 72,346 17,731 4,491 29,270 1,936 138,788 Metal manufacturing 210 1,952 135 178 - 8,231 115,165 894 3,681 130,444 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 219 3,854 515 178 18,555 48,717 5,849 1,956 79,843 Retail & wholesale 623 31,943 77 9,784 37,079 112,758 19,193 3,391 214,850 Other services 24,779 30 563 58,369 111,697 15,953 37,126 23 248,541 Public sector 12,457 1,779 8,845 64,756 5,147 7,769 1,497 102,249 Total 17,356 88,818 13,596 34,309 180,742 331,420 493,835 62,280 85,989 2,125 1,310,471 Figure 43: Lancashire Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes 10,470 6,616 3,958 5,528 90,369 47,736 34,321 3,327 62,721 2,102 267,148 Health care - 557 1,769 8,934 - 1,481 - 0 1,461 - 14,203 Metallic wastes - 488 - - - 193 118,432 76 274 - 119,462 Non-metallic wastes 1,751 8,435 82 10,945 4,037 49,057 230,881 6,578 10,916 - 322,682 Discarded equipment - 623 12 10 - 1,031 7,249 612 76 - 9,612 Animal & vegetable wastes 5,135 2,993 7,517 8,029 37,108 22,575 9,669 1,565 8,231 - 102,823 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 64,924 258 862 - 179,479 7,204 49,604 1,585 - 303,916 Common sludges - 388 - - 49,228 9,078 4,873 26 511 23 64,129 Mineral wastes - 3,794 - - - 20,789 81,207 493 213 - 106,496 Total 17,356 88,818 13,596 34,309 180,742 331,420 493,835 62,280 85,989 2,125 1,310,471 Figure 44: Lancashire Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.3.9 Merseyside

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 2,672 1,184 5,166 5,384 14,749 40,664 69,818 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 6,416 1,811 7,715 11,306 11,892 21,594 60,734 Power & Utilities 0 5,124 549 5,411 6,967 - 18,051 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 4,708 3,102 29,290 22,011 42,081 20,935 122,127 Metal manufacturing 3,840 3,643 6,831 15,369 11,617 - 41,299 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 1,636 6,748 6,333 4,824 10,096 18,056 47,692 Retail & wholesale 39,096 26,228 74,740 42,362 21,861 14,327 218,613 Other services 21,987 36,332 45,123 145,768 18,387 25,707 293,304 Public sector 3,449 9,234 45,029 15,699 12,921 45,571 131,902 Total 83,803 93,405 220,774 268,134 150,570 186,854 1,003,540

Employee Sizebands

Figure 45: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings

Animal & vegetable

wastes

Chemical wastes

Common sludges

Discarded equipment


Mineral wastes

Mixed (ordinary)

wastes

Non-metallic wastes

Total

Food, drink and tobacco 36,599 3,641 6,014 6 3 1,284 261 12,573 9,436 69,818 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 39 1,400 1,981 9 - 2,340 70 17,556 37,339 60,734 Power & Utilities - 12,304 609 4 0 346 3,486 1,144 157 18,051 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 101 78,339 402 48 12 2,072 17,905 13,954 9,294 122,127 Metal manufacturing 0 8,966 109 298 0 14,375 11,767 4,013 1,770 41,299 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 743 6,212 144 1,333 1 8,569 93 14,620 15,975 47,692 Retail & wholesale 6,075 13,289 26 4,121 79 31,770 137 78,132 84,985 218,613 Other services 3,907 29,817 7,017 1,120 212 44,027 604 86,358 120,240 293,304 Public sector 8,688 53 - 1,838 18,370 119 2 73,951 28,881 131,902 Total 56,152 154,022 16,302 8,778 18,678 104,903 34,326 302,301 308,078 1,003,540


Figure 46: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings by waste stream




Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Food, drink and tobacco 7,928 1,977 17 709 764 25,149 21,510 3,667 8,098 69,818 Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 657 1,369 30 0 2,714 19,954 32,251 2,819 889 50 60,734 Power & Utilities 5,165 182 257 6,427 658 34 5,329 18,051 Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 149 3,825 4,002 3,686 275 60,589 16,128 4,055 27,196 2,222 122,127 Metal manufacturing 105 1,778 81 92 - 4,790 32,084 574 1,796 41,299 Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 121 2,339 284 160 11,630 28,723 3,344 1,091 47,692 Retail & wholesale 638 32,163 83 9,672 38,819 113,164 20,315 3,759 218,613 Other services 30,321 34 618 71,823 131,460 19,685 39,333 30 293,304 Public sector 16,852 2,898 11,238 81,397 7,663 10,011 1,844 131,902 Total 9,598 95,789 7,610 26,432 3,752 320,578 383,642 64,503 89,334 2,301 1,003,540 Figure 47: Merseyside Estimate of C&I waste arisings by destination



Recovery

Land Recovery


Treatment Plant


Total

Chemical wastes - 6,304 4,145 4,488 275 43,106 26,182 2,287 64,963 2,272 154,022 Health care - 848 2,886 11,323 - 1,821 - 0 1,802 - 18,678 Metallic wastes - 458 - - - 167 103,946 83 250 - 104,903 Non-metallic wastes 998 10,226 43 9,910 2,714 52,064 214,001 6,732 11,390 - 308,078 Discarded equipment - 807 14 10 - 821 6,392 656 77 - 8,778 Animal & vegetable wastes 8,601 3,307 267 547 - 24,384 9,532 1,575 7,940 - 56,152 Mixed (ordinary) wastes - 69,589 256 155 - 170,722 7,196 52,549 1,834 - 302,301 Common sludges - 388 - - 764 9,395 4,865 14 846 30 16,302 Mineral wastes - 3,862 - - - 18,098 11,528 606 232 - 34,326 Total 9,598 95,789 7,610 26,432 3,752 320,578 383,642 64,503 89,334 2,301 1,003,540 Figure 48: Merseyside Estimate of Waste Type by Destination


2.4 Other Data

The survey form collected other relevant data that is reviewed briefly here:

2.4.1 Waste Recycling The survey not only notes the wastes that were already recycled, but also

assessed wastes in terms of their propensity to be recycled, based on a set of instructions and criteria given to the surveyors.

Analysis of the results shows largest opportunities in chemical wastes and mixed ordinary wastes as shown in the figure below.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Chemica

l was

tes

Health

care

Metallic

wastes

Non-m

etallic

was

tes

Discard

ed eq

uipmen

t

Anim

al & ve

getab

le was

tes

Mixed (

ordina

ry) w

astes

Common

sludg

es

Mineral

was

tes

Not recyclablePossibly recyclableRecyclable

Currently recycled

Figure 49: Recycling Opportunities

In terms of tonnes, these translate to:

Figure 50: Recycling Opportunities in Tonnes

Currently recycled

RecyclablePossibly

recyclableNot recyclable Total

Chemical wastes 591,545 16,253 566,227 244,503 1,418,527 Health care - - 10,166 75,133 85,300 Metallic wastes 714,681 2,846 2,754 530 720,812 Non-metallic wastes 1,494,123 244,444 280,272 23,470 2,042,309 Discarded equipment 39,649 4,451 5,932 2,211 52,243 Animal & vegetable wastes 237,821 2,760 196,160 40,331 477,071 Mixed (ordinary) wastes 44,859 333,592 1,181,714 275,991 1,836,156 Common sludges 80,424 - 263,491 3,901 347,816 Mineral wastes 386,744 4,385 152,585 8,341 552,055 Total 3,589,846 608,730 2,659,302 674,411 7,532,289


In recording this data, surveyors were supplied with a list of commonly and

easily recyclable material streams. For mixed wastes the surveyors were asked to assess whether the recyclable materials could, with the right sort of equipment or technique, be separated or segregated at an earlier stage of processing. This was recorded as “possibly recyclable”. All other materials or contaminated wastes were classed as “not recyclable”.

The survey therefore suggests that within the Region there is potentially

608,730 tonnes of waste available to recycle plus 2,659,302 tonnes that can possibly be recycled. This is particularly true in waste streams such as non-metallic wastes and mixed ordinary wastes, where more segregation of separation may be required, and chemical wastes. Only 674,411 tonnes of waste was identified as “not recyclable”. More analysis of this data into industry segments (using the dataset provided on CD-ROM) could be useful in helping target business support and market development organisations in increasing material recycling in the region.

2.4.2 Energy Recovery Similarly, each waste type recorded was assessed in terms of potential to energy

recover via energy from waste (EfW) or combined heat and power (CHP) facilities. To evaluate, the surveyors were provided with a list of calorific value of common waste materials and assessment criteria to assign materials as “recoverable” or “potentially recoverable”. A list of materials that could not be used in this way was also supplied, including metals, glass, and some aqueous liquids.

Typical waste calorific values are: Material Calorific Value kJ/kg Paper/board 16,900 Plastic 32,650 Food/garden 9,000 Textiles 15,580 Domestic wood 10,000 Tyres 32,000 Glass Nil Metal Nil Poultry litter 8,800 Straw 15,000 Meat and bone 18,600 Dried primary sewage sludge 18,000 Municipal solid waste 9,500 Refuse derived waste 18,500 General Industrial waste 16,000 Hospital waste 14,000 Other 10,600

Figure 51: Calorific values of common waste streams

These compare to 28,000 kJ/kg for coal and 45,700 kJ/kg for crude oil. Materials which were eminently recoverable, such as paper/card, plastics,

textiles, wood/MDF, and tyres were classed as “recoverable”. Materials with a smaller calorific value, but could be energy recovered in the right type of equipment, such as


meat and bone, municipal waste, food and garden waste, straw, and poultry litter were classed as “potentially recoverable”, particularly if mixed or with a high water content.

The survey therefore identified recoverable and possibly recoverable wastes as

follows:

Figure 52: Recoverable Wastes (by SOC)

Currently recovered

RecoverablePossibly

recoverableNot

recoverableDon't know Total

Chemical wastes 25,716 877,737 313,680 141,685 59,710 1,418,527 Health care 12,093 118 44,722 20,019 8,348 85,300 Metallic wastes 88,550 566,411 64,020 1,830 720,812 Non-metallic wastes 461 298,266 232,908 426,418 1,084,257 2,042,309 Discarded equipment 69 8,814 26,176 9,112 8,072 52,243 Animal & vegetable wastes 8,756 268,560 15,898 153,724 30,132 477,071 Mixed (ordinary) wastes 1,584 164,968 125,062 946,421 598,121 1,836,156 Common sludges 313,225 29,525 5,001 65 347,816 Mineral wastes 417,938 67,759 6,314 60,044 552,055 Total 48,679 2,438,176 1,422,142 1,772,714 1,850,579 7,532,289 Figure 53: Recoverable Wastes (by SOC) in tonnes

There are clearly opportunities here of up to 3.5m tonnes (plus a proportion of

that recorded as “don’t know”) of potentially recoverable waste, to feed appropriate energy from waste or combined heat and power units. Non-metallic wastes and mixed ordinary wastes represent the most significant groups although there is likely overlap with recycling opportunities too.

More analysis of this data into industry segments (using the dataset provided on

CD-ROM) could be useful in helping target business support and market development organisations in increasing energy recovery in the region.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Chemica

l was

tes

Health

care

Metallic

wastes

Non-m

etallic

was

tes

Discard

ed eq

uipmen

t

Anim

al & ve

getab

le was

tes

Mixed (

ordina

ry) was

tes

Common

sludg

es

Mineral

was

tes

Don't knowNot recoverablePossibly recoverableRecoverableCurrently recovered


2.4.3 Hazardous Waste Each waste stream recorded was assessed in terms of hazardous or non-

hazardous waste. This was based upon information supplied by the company being surveyed (e.g. from H&S data, invoices or transfer notes), or evaluation by the surveyor against a set of criteria, and list of common hazardous wastes including:

§ Solvents and thinners

§ Oils

§ Acids

§ Tars

§ Chemicals

§ Asbestos

§ Pesticides

§ Metal paints

§ Some electrical equipment – televisions, computers

§ Toner and ink cartridges

§ Fluorescent tubes

§ Lead-acid batteries

§ Used vehicles

Analysing survey data for % hazardous and non-hazardous waste against industrial sector gave the following results:

Hazardous Non-hazardous

Food, drink and tobacco 3.4% 96.6%Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 3.2% 96.8%Power & Utilities 81.7% 18.3%Chemical/non-metallic 32.2% 67.8%Metal manufacturing 78.2% 21.8%Machinery & equipment 33.9% 66.1%Retail & wholesale 10.7% 89.3%Other services 20.9% 79.1%Public sector 22.0% 78.0%

Figure 54: Proportion of Hazardous Wastes per Industry Sector (survey)


Hazardous Non-hazardous

Food, drink and tobacco 0.0% 100.0%Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 0.1% 99.9%Power & Utilities 1.7% 98.3%Chemical/non-metallic 17.4% 82.6%Metal manufacturing 92.2% 7.8%Machinery & equipment 75.6% 24.4%Retail & wholesale 16.5% 83.5%Other services 0.0% 100.0%

Figure 55: Proportion of Hazardous Wastes per Industry Sector (PPC)

2.4.4 Waste Exports

For each waste stream, those treated, recycled or disposed of outside the North West region were recorded. This is based upon the knowledge of the company representative being surveyed – in many cases he/she will not know or may assume if collected by a local company that the waste is treated locally. Nevertheless, the survey recorded that just over 10% of the survey tonnage was exported from the region. If the “don’t knows” are split in the same proportion to internal/external figures, the total exported comes to around 13.5%. The following figure summarises this data (Figure 56: Waste Exports from the Region)

Waste transfer between sub-regions was not surveyed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Waste treatment in NW Waste exported from NW Don't know

Figure 56: Waste Exports from the Region


2.4.5 Data Sources

A variety of steps were taken to ensure the quality of the data collected. For the face-to-face interviews, surveyors were given tools to estimate waste tonnages from containers or other storage media they saw, but were encouraged to either take quantities from the company’s written records (invoices, transfer notes etc) or if not available, to take estimates provided by the company themselves, and agreed with the surveyor.

The final data set showed that 99% of the data came from written records or company estimates.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Written records Company estimate Surveyor estimate

Figure 57: Data Sources

2.4.6 Contractors For each waste stream, the contractor who collected and either treated or

disposed of the waste concerned, was recorded where the information was available.

On a regional basis, by number of companies served and tonnage:

Top five by no. companies Top five by tonnage Biffa B&M Waste Services Veolia (incl. Cleanaway) Biffa Sita Sita Onyx European Metals Recycling Viridor ECO-OILS


2.5 Further Data Analysis and Interpretation

The original tender did not require commentary or interpretation of results beyond

explanation of the methodology and validity of the data. Therefore, further analysis of the data, or comparison, for instance, to earlier surveys is not included in this report.

However, electronic copies of the complete dataset plus of the tables published

in this report are available on CD-ROM and can be used for this purpose. The data presentation used is compatible with that for previous Environment Agency studies.


3 Survey Design

The following section describes the methodology used to deliver this survey, based upon the requirements of the original tender, and discussed and agreed throughout its development with the project Steering Group. This therefore covers the developed survey structure, both in terms of data collected and companies surveyed (ie. the sample), and how this survey was delivered in practice.

In development of the survey structure and its eventual delivery, emphasis was

made on a data set that both met the requirements of the survey tender, but also was focussed and straight forward in delivery to ensure consistent data collection between different surveyors, and a high quality of collected data.

The restricted budget and timescales for delivery meant that this survey had to be

delivered efficiently and effectively. Therefore, electronic data gathering and collation was adopted in place of the paper systems used for earlier C&I surveys, and steps were taken during survey form design and data entry to ensure that excessive data cleanup and review was not required, a problem which had dogged previous Environment Agency surveys and grossly extended delivery times and costs.

Such steps included simplifying waste classifications for the surveyors using the 31

SOC waste classifications compared to ca. 970 EWC codes, and the removal of questions from the form that did not support the main aims of the survey, or the company being surveyed did not have to hand or were unwilling to divulge e.g. waste disposal costs. All such developments were discussed and agreed with the Steering Group prior to implementation.

3.1 Classifying Companies – Sector and Size

The sample structure for previous surveys of commercial and industrial waste was

based upon a 2-D matrix with Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and company size with respect to the number of employees on the two axes. There are many hundred individual SIC codes, and correctly assigning a SIC code to a company’s core operation can introduce errors. Therefore, for this survey, and with agreement with the project Steering Group, the SIC groups followed precisely the broader categories used in previous surveys: SIC Code Sectors:

1. Food, drink and tobacco 2. Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 3. Power & Utilities 4. Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 5. Metal manufacturing 6. Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 7. Retail & wholesale 8. Other services 9. Public sector


A summary of sectors against SIC code ranges, is given in Appendix 2.

With respect to company size, unlike prior surveys, companies with less than 5 employees were excluded entirely. This was on the grounds that such companies were difficult to survey accurately and that although these companies could aggregate to a significant waste stream, much of the waste from this source is likely to find its way into the municipal waste stream either via household collections or through CA sites.

3.2 The Sample Matrix

The prime source of company data used was obtained from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), from VAT and Income Tax records. From this data, the total Local Unit Count, “Universe”, of companies in the North West Commercial and Industrial sectors is as follows, broken down by sector and company size (represented by number of employees):

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 310 185 130 80 85 60 850Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 830 560 480 205 130 35 2,240Power & Utilities 40 30 50 15 15 15 165Chemical/non-metallic minerals 380 280 340 200 155 55 1,410Metal manufacture 580 470 320 130 50 10 1,560Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 865 615 490 225 160 80 2,435Retail & wholesale 10,495 5,255 2,700 770 345 230 19,795Other services 12,000 7,315 4,520 1,485 830 400 26,550Public sector 3,970 3,915 4,800 1,455 785 375 15,300Total 29,470 18,625 13,830 4,565 2,555 1,260 70,305

Employee Sizebands

Figure 58: North West Company Universe, by sector and size4

These figures exclude companies with less than 5 employees, for the reasons explained earlier. This gives a total survey target of some 70,000 companies, split by sector as shown by the following diagrams:

Figure 59: Commercial & Industrial Sector by Local Unit Count

4 Source Office of National Statistics, September 2006

12%

28%

38%

22%

Manufacturing Retail & wholesale Other services Public sector


10%

26%

2%

16%

18%

28%

Food, drink and tobacco

Textiles/wood/paper/publishing

Power & Utilities

Chemical/non-metallic minerals

Metal manufacture

Machinery & equipment (othermanufacturing)

Figure 60: Manufacturing Sector Breakdown by Local Unit Count

If this sample matrix is reduced simply pro-rata to give a total survey sample size of 1,000 companies, some matrix cells are reduced to zero or close to zero, with some key sectors to the North West economy under represented (e.g. manufacturing), and small companies (with expected relatively low waste arisings) predominate over larger companies. Therefore, with the agreement of the Steering Group, the sample matrix was adjusted to give: § More emphasis to key regional sectors, such as chemicals and food and drink,

using regional GVA per sector5 § More emphasis to larger companies over smaller operations § No cells to contain >50% of available regional universe (as this may cause

recruitment problems) and no cells in key sectors contain <1%. The resultant Target Sample agreed was therefore:

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 10 12 10 18 18 17 85Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 5 5 10 10 15 14 59Power & Utilities 1 2 2 2 2 2 11Chemical/non-metallic minerals 20 20 20 32 40 27 159Metal manufacture 20 20 20 20 8 7 95Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 15 15 15 20 10 20 95Retail & wholesale 35 35 35 35 20 20 180Other services 45 45 45 45 30 30 240Public sector 5 5 5 5 5 10 35Total 156 159 162 187 148 147 959

Employee Sizebands

Figure 61: Survey Target Sample Matrix

Each cell of the matrix therefore contains the number of companies of that size and sector to be surveyed.

5 Comparing North West Sector relative importance, against England and Wales, using “UK Standard Industrial Classification of

Economic Activities for Gross Value Added by Region” for 2003, from www.statistics.gov.uk


3.3 Classifying Waste

We used the Substance Orientation Classification method to classify Commercial & Industrial waste arisings. The 9 SOC groups and 31 SOC sub-groups used are given in Appendix 3 – SOC matched to Eurostat codes. This classification method was used because it classifies waste into a relatively small number of easily identifiable types.

Many of the problems experienced during previous surveys were due to the use of waste classifications that were too complex for easy use in the field. For example, the European Waste Catalogue classifies waste into over 900 different types, using 6-digit codes that contain information about the source of the waste as well as its nature. The report on the 2003 C&I survey of Wales, which used the EWC, described it as “laborious, cumbersome and incomplete”.

The SOC codes map onto the Eurostat codes used in other waste surveys (see Appendix 3), and also onto the EWC. This ensures results from the NW C&I survey can be compared with those generated by other surveys conducted both in the UK and mainland Europe.

3.4 The Survey Form

All surveyors carried laptops loaded with Urban Mines’ EV Survey database application, customised for this C&I survey. The survey form consisted of nine questions, to be answered for each waste stream produced by the company. A waste stream was defined as waste which left site for disposal or treatment – any material re-used on site was not included. This was because only waste material leaving site would have an impact on regional waste infrastructure requirements. During the survey, companies were found to produce between 1 and 28 waste streams, with the average being 3.9 streams.

For all but one of the survey questions, the surveyors selected the answer from a fixed drop-down list or set of radio buttons. Restricting possible answers in this way improves data integrity. The nine questions, with possible answers, are summarised in Appendix 1.

The survey form also restricted surveyors to internally consistent answers, in order to reduce the need for later data cleaning. For example, if the waste management route selected was “Incineration without Energy Recovery”, the energy recovery question would automatically set to “Currently recovered”, and the surveyor would be unable to change that answer without first changing the waste management route.

Surveyors were provided with two tools to calculate the annual tonnage of waste produced. Selecting “Calculate Tonnage By: Container”, opened the container calculation tool. The 29 standard container types, with volumes, are shown in Appendix 4 – Standard Containers. Conversion factors, for converting volumes to tonnes of material, were provided as shown in Appendix 5 – Conversion Factors. To ensure internal consistency, the conversion factors offered were limited to those relevant to the SOC sub-group selected on the main survey form. An item-based calculation tool was also provided, using the 23 standard items listed in Appendix 6 – Standard Items.

We have found that calculating tonnages in this way produces better quality data, because the surveyor and company contact see both calculation and result and are


encouraged to ask themselves whether the tonnage generated seems reasonable. During the survey, surveyors used the container tool to calculate tonnages for 51% of waste streams, and the item tool for 9% of waste streams.

4 Survey Delivery

4.1 Data Sample Preparation

The Office of National Statistics supplied data for 17,278 companies on request – data requirement was specified by Urban Mines, requested by the Environment Agency and paid for by the funders. Significant cleanup of this data was required before it could be used.

4.2 Tele-booking Process

Four tele-operators from Arete Business Services were trained on the developed conversational call script. All staff were already familiar with Urban Mines’ proprietary call management system, EVCall, which they used remotely, working from their own offices, connected to the Urban Mines servers.

Appointment booking began with Greater Manchester companies, followed by Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria. EVCall presented the tele-operators with companies selected at random, cycling through the 54 cells to ensure a reasonable spread of cells within each sub-region. Cells were closed off once the cell target, plus an overbooking margin, had been achieved.

Once a company had agreed to participate in the survey, the tele-operator made an appointment. EVCall offered the operator a selection of dates and time slots, presenting the nearest surveyor at the top of each list. Clustering visits geographically allowed us to maximise the number of visits per day for each individual surveyor. Each company being surveyed received a confirmation letter plus information pack, the day after the booking had been made.

4.3 Checking Company Data

To make sure that the information held in the ONS database was correct, as each booking was made, operators checked SIC (business type) code and number of employees. Previous surveys reported problems with ONS data in this respect, and company address details.

4.4 Survey Visit The chosen surveyor visited each company with whom they had an appointment

booked in person. The survey visit consisted of an initial discussion to explain the reason for the survey again, but also to “break the ice”. Following this, the survey was completed using EVSurvey, as described earlier, on the surveyor’s laptop.

Surveyors tried to collect as much data as possible from written records, such as waste collection or disposal invoices, and electronic records. If necessary, the surveyor


would prompt the company contact by suggesting the types of records which might be available.

After completion of the interview stage, the surveyor asked to be taken on a brief tour of the company’s facilities, to check the data already collected and to spot other waste streams which the company representative may have forgotten. Surveyors were trained to look for office and canteen waste, which is often overlooked.

To complete the visit, the surveyor thanked the company representative for their involvement, and handed over literature of regionally significant support programmes with whom the company could take their discussions in waste further. This included Envirowise, NISP and Enworks. This not only added value to the visit, but also generated some leads for the support organisations concerned.

4.5 Data Collation

After a series of visits, the surveyors used the export function in EVSurvey to export completed datasets and email to Urban Mines. On arrival the data was checked and appended to the main survey database. This proved to be an effective and reliable process.

4.6 Field Trials

The survey bookings and survey visits were “road tested” in August 2006. This consisted of selection of companies at random, and tested:

• the call flow script and EVCall software • confirmation paperwork • survey methodology plus software • data entry and collation

A total of 9 companies were booked and visited for these trials, by surveyors from

Urban Mines and Groundwork. These trials both identified problems and helped prepare training materials for the subsequent training sessions.

4.7 Surveyor and Tele-booker Training

Day sessions were held with tele-bookers from Arete and the survey team from Groundwork (plus those providing cover during periods of absence) to introduce the survey and give specific software and survey methodology training. Particularly for the surveyors, training included explanation of the process of recording data, for handling and selecting waste types and weight conversions, and for interpreting responses. Guidance was also given for answering the “recyclable” and “recoverable” questions on the survey sheet, and real examples in the form of case studies, were reviewed. Survey packs were also provided to surveyors, including a detailed user guide, which re-emphasised all the areas covered during training, and provided a reference during survey visits. During the same session, all required software was installed on the surveyor’s laptops. This session was also attended by Peter Greifenberg representing the Steering Group.


A review session 2 weeks into the survey, again carried out with the surveyors, tackled problems and issues, and resulted in some minor changes to the survey software and backup.

4.8 Monitoring Performance

Throughout the survey, project managers at Urban Mines monitored call statistics, cell completion and company cancellation rates via remote access to a set of Excel pivot tables linked live to EVCall.

During the initial booking phase, and whenever the booking strategy was changed, Arete and Urban Mines staff monitored the operators’ performance and that of the call script, by monitoring calls directly on site.

As well as handling booking and company data, the EVCall call software package also produced a number of performance indicators allowing project managers at Urban Mines to monitor:

• success rate per individual tele-operator i.e. surveys booked per hour • cancellation rate (i.e. % cancelled surveys compared to the number booked) • survey visit calls per day per surveyor, and “no show” rate

At periods throughout the survey, both tele-bookers and surveyors were directly monitored to check performance and correct any problems. For the tele-bookers, adherence to script was checked by listening into calls, and changes made if appropriate. For survey visits, Peter Greifenberg for the Steering Group and Peter Scholes for Urban Mines made joint visits with each of the Groundwork surveyors, both to check that the surveying methodology was being adhered to, and to identify problems, if any, with the data logging software. Minor issues were identified and actions taken.


5 Data Collation and Survey Results

The survey data collected by the survey visits, was collated into a single waste

stream database, with a number of clean-up operations carried out to ensure data quality was maintained.

5.1 Data Acquisition and Cleaning

The following chart illustrates the problem of utilising survey data of waste from the commercial and industrial sector. The bars in the histogram show that of the more than 3,000 individual waste streams recorded, the majority are skewed toward zero but the mean is over 200 tonnes per waste stream because some companies produce large amounts. The median tonnage produced per waste stream is 6.41 tonnes as in the lower right box.

Figure 62: Histogram of survey tonnage per waste stream

This chart nicely illustrates the idiosyncrasies of waste produced by different

companies. Apparently similar companies can produce significantly different quantities of waste.

5.2 Dealing with Outliers

All data received was reviewed electronically to identify “outliers” i.e. those data which lay outside of the expected ranges, which could be re-confirmed and changed, if need be, by the surveyor concerned. This screen was designed to pick up entry errors and calculation errors, as well as incorrect classifications.

The data for tonnages and tonnes/employee were shown to follow lognormal distributions. This was also true for each of the SIC sectors apart from food and drink which was best described by a gamma distribution. The following method was used to identify outliers:


• By sight – scatter plots. Initially we adopted a common sense approach, using

experience to assess if those outside the inter-quartile range (IQR) by more than 1.5 IQR appear “reasonable” (this captures both mild and extreme outliers). However, it is difficult to spot outliers toward zero given the characteristic lognormal distribution of the data, since the bottom outliers will be close to the IQR since waste arisings cannot be less than zero.

• To consider the possibility of outliers on the low side the data was normalised (take

natural logs) and Box-Whisker plots were constructed to allow the visual identification of outliers at top and bottom of the distribution. See below for more detail.

Box-Whisker plots

Box-plots graphically show the central location and scatter/dispersion of the observations of a sample(s). Comparative descriptives shows vertical box-plots for each sample, side-by-side for comparison. The blue line series shows parametric statistics whilst the notched box and whiskers show non-parametric statistics. In the example below, the notched box shows the median, lower and upper quartiles, and confidence interval around the median. The dotted-line connects the nearest observations within 1.5 IQRs (inter-quartile ranges) of the lower and upper quartiles. The red crosses (+) and circles (o) indicate possible outliers - observations more than 1.5 IQRs (near outliers) and 3.0 IQRs (far outliers) from the quartiles.

Figure 63: Example Box-Whisker Plot

That is, surveys were referred back for checking by the surveyor if the data for any

company was shown by the above process as an outlier (+/-1.5 IQR) in any of: • Tonnage, tonnes/employee, log(tonnes), or log(tonnes/employee)

This process led to 115 of the surveys being checked by the surveyors and 6 changes made to the data entry. The most common error was for extra zeros to be added when inputting. However, this process did not pick up any examples of zeros being omitted i.e. it cannot account for companies that produce a lot of waste but the inputting error makes it appear below average. This is a potential source of underestimation in the survey.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Chemicals Food and drink Machinery &equipment

Other services Public sector Retail/whole Text/wood/paper/publ Metal mfr


5.3 Data Collected v Sample Matrix

The first section of this report explains how the sample matrix was devised, and its agreed form, as shown in Figure 61: Survey Target Sample Matrix. All company recruitment and survey strategies were based upon achieving this distribution, on a cell by cell basis, with as much as possible an even distribution of companies cross the sub-regions.

Based upon the actual survey results achieved, both from face to face surveys and from PPC data, total companies surveyed against sector and size, was as follows:

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 8 11 13 18 15 20 85Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 4 5 14 10 22 10 65Power & Utilities 1 3 2 4 2 3 15Chemical/non-metallic minerals 22 21 33 49 44 30 199Metal manufacture 18 19 24 26 11 5 103Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 11 14 16 19 15 14 89Retail & wholesale 38 34 37 28 13 10 160Other services 50 46 53 46 18 15 228Public sector 5 6 7 6 6 7 37Total 157 159 199 206 146 114 981

Employee Sizebands

Figure 64: Actual Delivered Survey Matrix

Compared to original target, the actual coverage per individual cell was as follows:

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 80% 92% 130% 100% 83% 118% 100%Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 80% 100% 140% 100% 147% 71% 110%Power & Utilities 100% 150% 100% 200% 100% 150% 136%Chemical/non-metallic minerals 110% 105% 165% 153% 110% 111% 125%Metal manufacture 90% 95% 120% 130% 138% 71% 108%Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 73% 93% 107% 95% 150% 70% 94%Retail & wholesale 109% 97% 106% 80% 65% 50% 89%Other services 111% 102% 118% 102% 60% 50% 95%Public sector 100% 120% 140% 120% 120% 70% 106%

Employee Sizebands

Figure 65: Actual Coverage per Cell (% of target)

5.4 Data Aggregation

This project utilises both the data generated from the survey as well as the returns made from companies as part of their Pollution Prevention and Control obligations. As such these two data sources need to be amalgamated to produce a regional estimate of C&I waste arisings. Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) manages emissions to air, land and water from certain business processes. Companies operating a process covered by this regime must have a PPC authorisation from the Environment Agency. As part of the regulations each authorised company must provide a range of data including all waste materials generated.


The PPC data for 2005-6 obtained from the Environment Agency as part of this project forms a self selected sub set of the North West C&I universe in that it captures certain types of regulated business such as those carrying out manufacturing and other industrial activities and activities involving solvents. It has been included in the estimation of waste arisings given that these companies do potentially produce large amounts of waste and are in general larger companies. As has been outlined earlier, difficulties were found in recruiting larger companies to participate and thus the PPC data is useful in filling this gap. This is shown in the table below that excludes those PPC companies that were included as part of the random survey. Note the high number of PPC companies in the chemical sector.

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 3 1 3 10 17Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 1 4 2 9 4 20Power & Utilities 1 2 2 2 2 9Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 2 1 13 20 26 16 78Metal manufacturing 2 3 6 5 2 18Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 2 3 1 6Retail & wholesale 1 1 1 1 4Other services 1 1 2Public sectorTotal 3 5 27 35 48 36 154

Employee Sizebands

Figure 66: PPC Data – by Sectors

These PPC companies produce the following amount of waste:

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 14,288 272 161,527 53,708 229,795Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 55,112 43,978 301 143,976 298,934 542,301Power & Utilities 209,563 198 4,038 1,858 448 216,104Chemical/non-metallic minerals manufacturing 157 434 3,411 26,434 46,617 86,765 163,818Metal manufacturing 79 280 240,851 21,547 1,288 264,045Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 71 1,817 2,369 4,257Retail & wholesale 27 1,047 123 628 1,826Other services 23 5,814 5,837Public sectorTotal 184 265,188 63,223 277,904 377,342 444,141 1,427,983

Employee Sizebands

Figure 67: Weights from PPC records

Some of the companies covered by the PPC data set will produce unusually large amounts of waste both in total and per employee. Simply including all the PPC results in the survey for grossing up would result in an overestimate of total arisings due to the inclusion of a higher proportion of exceptionally large waste producers in the survey.

Grossing Up:

§ Follows EA 2002/3 Methodology § Using data grossed up in proportion to the universe data as in

Figure 58: North West Company Universe, by sector and size

Therefore, in order to utilise the PPC data with the survey results, those PPC companies that are extreme outliers of the survey data set cannot be included in the grossing up process but can be added to the grossed up total. Only 13 of the PPC companies were added in this way, plus the 2 survey companies on the same basis, and the cells to which they were added is shown in the table following:


5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-249 250+ TotalFood, drink and tobacco 2 2 4Textiles/wood/paper/publishing 1 2 2 2 7Power & Utilities 1 1Chemical/non-metallic minerals 0Metal manufacture 1 1 2Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing) 1 1Retail & wholesale 0Other services 0Public sector 0Total 0 2 4 1 6 2 15

Employee Sizebands

Figure 68: Number of PPC/Survey companies added to cells

The PPC data that was included in the grossing up exercise were those that were within +/- 3 inter quartile ranges of the survey inter quartile range for both the total tonnage and the tonnage per employee of the relevant SIC group. Those outside this range were added to the grossed up figure (the 13 in Figure 68: Number of PPC/Survey companies added to cells).

This approach to include the PPC data is analogous to the methodology of the last Environment Agency survey that acknowledged that some sites produce waste in atypical quantities for their sector. These were generally treated in the normal way for grossing up purposes except for the 17 coal fired power stations and four integrated iron and steel producers that were treated as a special category with a gross up factor of 1 (i.e. added). Inclusion of the PPC data in this survey creates a higher proportion of the atypical sites to total companies and grossing up using them all would lead to an overestimate of C&I waste arisings. Rather than separate a particular sub set as in the Environment Agency survey, our approach identifies the most extreme of the PPC dataset by the above method regardless of the industrial sector to which they belong.

Distribution of PPC data

The histogram below shows the distribution of waste arisings per PPC company. Compared to the surveyed companies, the mean of around 8,500 tonnes per PPC company is more than 40 times greater than the survey mean and the median over 100 times greater.

Figure 69: PPC Data Distribution


Conditioning of Agricultural Land

Data received from the PPC permitted companies made it possible to identify a significant quantity of waste material (877,000 tonnes) that are managed under a registered exemption for the beneficial conditioning of agricultural land. Waste materials suitable for spreading on agricultural land for conditioning arise primarily from a small number of producers which are necessarily subject to PPC permits and include materials generated from processes used to recycle paper and materials from mineral processing. Given the small number of producers these waste were not encountered in the statistical survey, therefore data from these producers has not been grossed up with the surveyed data but added to the grossed up total. The waste quantities shown in the tables under the waste management method as Land Recovery are therefore derived from the data from PPC records of specific companies and have not been subject to any statistical grossing up.

Sub Regional Estimation

Estimates for the 9 sub-regions follow the same method as for the region as a whole apart from the added PPC companies only added to the appropriate region.

5.5 Survey Accuracy

The survey methodology was developed from the outset to minimise errors and maximise data quality. Resisting the temptation to extend the set of questions to collect other non-core data, or to collect hard to find data, such as waste disposal costs, was an important first step in this approach.

5.5.1 Areas of uncertainty - potential sources of error

As with all surveys, there are several areas of potential error in both collecting

the data, and in grossing up and other calculations. Steps were taken to minimise such effects throughout the survey. Potential areas of potential error include:

• Survey data (incorrect data and recording errors)

Whilst many companies referred to company records to provide the data, others relied on estimates. Note that only 1% of the survey data was estimated by the surveyor – either the data was taken directly from company records, or the company representative estimated tonnages (see Figure 57: Data Sources). Some of the responses identified as outliers that were queried, and subsequently adjusted, arose from simple input mistakes as well as one example where the waste was recorded for the whole of a managed building when the company accounted for only a small proportion of this. Therefore, proactive steps of monitoring data source and screening data for outliers, minimised the effect of entry or data errors.


• ONS data.

A number of companies appeared to have been allocated in the wrong cell but confirmation of SIC codes and numbers employed during booking of appointments, and review during the survey visit, was aimed to correct these. Therefore, we believe the resultant impact of ONS data errors was low.

• Conversion factors.

The conversion factors for the Substance Oriented Classification was derived from those used in the 2002/03 Environment Survey for each of the European Waste Classification codes. As such the several hundred codes for the EWC were distilled to the SOC groups and sub groups. Again, attempts were made to minimise such errors by giving the surveyor and company representative the opportunity to review and change results, but also by as much as possible, taking figures from the company’s written records (see above).

• Waste (SOC) coding.

The more simple SOC codes (as compared to EWC coding) make this a less likely source of error compared to prior surveys. We therefore expect the impact of incorrect coding to be low.

• Non-randomness of the sample.

Randomness of selection was a goal of the survey but the inclusion of the PPC data gives a degree of non-randomness to the overall results. However, as inclusion of this data identified some large scale producers that may not have been included under random sampling, we believe inclusion of such data improved the overall quality of the survey data and grossed up results, compared to previous surveys.

• Sub-regional estimates.

Differences between the sub-regions in terms of the underlying waste per cell can lead to errors given the method used.


5.5.2 Confidence Levels An understanding of the confidence that can be placed in the final survey data

must be based on both the statistical validity of the data and the quality of the data and information used to populate the statistical fields. The issues surrounding data quality where addressed through in depth examination of experience from the previous EA surveys in England and Wales, by the design of the survey requirements, by the use of experienced resource efficiency surveyors, training and survey quality monitoring and by timely screening and follow up for outliers and anomalies and cross checking with PPC returned data. The combination of these factors contribute to obtaining a high qualitative confidence level in the base survey data.

The prior Environment Agency National Waste Production Surveys were

designed to produce a high level of precision for national estimates (a confidence level of 95% and an interval of +/- 3%) based upon the assumption of normality. However, the Environment Agency methodology also states that “the standard errors and confidence intervals only give some comfort or otherwise about the representativeness of the sample assuming it is truly random”. The Agency methodology explicitly states that the standard errors and confidence intervals do not provide an estimate of the sources of error such as those listed above.

The EA survey completed more recently for Wales, without explaining the methodology, calculates the standard errors and confidence intervals with the factors leading to errors. They report a 90% confidence interval of +/- 23%

In surveying around 1,000 companies the level of accuracy would match that of the Environment Agency survey. However, this survey has also included all the PPC companies in the region and thus in this respect the survey sample is non-random. The inclusion of the PPC data for anomalous non scalable waste producers has allowed extreme outliers to be included in a manner that does not obviously skew the data and in fact increases the accuracy of the survey although this methodology cannot be described through standard statistical analysis.


6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The use of a rigorous and effective methodology drawing on lessons from previous survey experience provides the most sound and accurate regional commercial and industrial waste arisings data generated to date. It provides the NWRTAB and regional and sub-regional planning bodies with the level of data and detail they require to plan for new waste facilities in the future.

The survey has highlighted an impressive level of recycling in the region, but has

also identified an estimated 2.5 million tonnes of material that is either recyclable or potentially recyclable, but currently disposed of by other means. Similar opportunities lie in recovering energy from waste.

Estimating commercial and industrial waste arisings is a non-trivial task and should not be undertaken by the faint hearted. However, we have demonstrated that using well thought out procedures, well trained personnel and electronic data gathering and collation, a high quality complex survey can be delivered cost effectively.

Persuading businesses to take part in such a survey is very difficult and requires

well thought out systems to minimise rejection rates and persistence is a pre-requisite.

The focus of the survey data was to collect information on waste material types that was both consistent with previous survey classification but also simplified and meaningful to both waste producers and final survey users. The reduction in waste types offered for selection from the several hundred of the European Waste Classification to the 30 or so of the Substance Oriented Classification provided a significant advantage in both reducing choices of “other” as well as the time on site.

Efficient use of time on site is preferred by both surveyed and surveyor as well as reducing the cost. Reducing the cost (relative to previous Environment Agency surveys) may provide potentially one of the biggest benefits in that it might be possible to repeat the survey at regular intervals, thus leading to a time series data set. The lack of such time series data sets has thus far been a significant information gap in developing the trend analysis required to underpin planning for waste management infrastructure.

It is clear that companies have very different methods of maintaining records of waste production. All but around 1% of the survey data came from the companies themselves (as opposed to surveyor estimates) split approximately equally between company records and company estimates. Companies provided data in tonnages, volumes, and items. Clearly, the volumes have to be converted to tonnages via appropriate factors including assessments of how full the bins are or how much a company compacts the waste by some method (conversion rates were used for compacted materials). With these kinds of issues present it is vital that the surveyors have been well trained and that the surveying process is audited throughout.

The inclusion of the PPC data has advantages but also introduces a non statistical element to the survey results. The use of PPC data has resulted in the identification of some large scale producers that may not have been included under random sample but none the less should be included as they add significantly to the regional total. Their


non-inclusion in the prior Environment Agency survey also illustrates an issue in that the total estimated tonnage for Metal Manufacturing from that survey was less than half the tonnage from a single PPC company included in this survey. By inclusion of such data, the results cannot be said to result from a non-random survey and therefore traditional confidence intervals cannot be calculated here (indeed the usefulness of such statistical confidence levels in prior surveys is in any case questionable).

The survey provides a base level of information from which a significant level of

interpretation, analysis and projection can be drawn which will inform the future development of waste management methods and facilities within the North West. However, it was not within the remit of this project to undertake such interpretation which will be taken forward through the work of the RTAB and local planning authorities within the region.

Recommendations

1. We recommend that this survey is repeated with the same methodology every 2 to 3 years, to provide a time series of data to support long term planning and measure the impact of new waste facilities and/or initiatives. 2. We recommend that Regional surveys of this type are repeated in other UK regions, to provide the same type of risings data for regional and cross-regional planning. 3. We suggest that similar work in the future uses the same simple and consistent methodology as developed for this survey. 4. Further interpretation and analysis of the base survey data should be taken forward by:

• The RTAB and local planning authorities in order to inform the required policies and projections for planning for new sustainable waste management methods and facilities.

• The BREW partnership in addressing the region’s requirements for improving

resource efficiency and addressing the contribution that more sustainable management of C&I waste can make to climate change.

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB i i

1. Survey Questions

• SOC group and sub-group of waste stream o SOC groups and sub-groups given in Appendix 3 – SOC matched to

Eurostat codes)

• Nature of waste: o Hazardous o Non-hazardous

Based upon detailed assessment criteria supplied to the surveyors

• Annual tonnage (see notes on conversion factors) • Source of data:

o Written records o Company estimate o Surveyor estimate

to help in assessing confidence in the data provided

• Contractor

• Waste Management: o Landfill o Incineration with Energy Recovery o Incineration without Energy Recovery o Transfer station o Treatment plant o Recycling o Composting o Waste water treatment o Don’t know

• Recyclable? o Currently recycled o Recyclable o Possibly recyclable o Not recyclable

based upon a detailed set of assessment criteria supplied to the surveyors

• Energy Recovery? o Currently recovered o Recoverable o Possible recoverable o Not recoverable

based upon a detailed set of assessment criteria supplied to the surveyors, including calorific values of common wastes

• Does waste leave North West?

o Yes o No o Don’t know

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB ii ii

2. SIC Codes and Industrial Sectors

Sector Type SICRange SectorName 1 Ind 150-160 Food, drink and tobacco

Ind 170-193 Manufacture of textiles, wearing apparel, leather, luggage, handbags and footwear

Ind 200-205 Wood and wood products

Ind 210-212 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 2

Ind 220-223 Publishing, printing and recording

7 Ind 230-233, 400-410 Production of coke, oil, gas, electricity, water

Ind 240-252 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products; cleaning products, man-made fibres etc; rubber and plastic products 3

Ind 260-268 Other non-metallic mineral products

Ind 270-275 Manufacture of basic metals 4

Ind 280-287 Manufacture of fabricated metal products

Ind 290-297 Manufacture of machinery and equipment

Ind 300-335 Manufacture of office machinery, computers, electrical, radio, television and communication equipment; medical and optical instruments and clocks

Ind 340-355 Manufacture of motor vehicles and other transport equipment

6

Ind 360-366 Furniture and other manufacturing

Ind 370-372 RECYCLING (excluded from waste production estimates to avoid double counting)

8 Comm 500-527 Retail - motor vehicles, parts and fuel; wholesale; other retail

Comm 550-555 Hotels, catering

Comm 600-632, 640-642 Transport, storage, communications

Comm 633-634, 650-726, 740-748, 910-930

Travel agents, other business, finance, real estate and computer related activities

10

Comm 730-732, 850-852 Miscellaneous

Comm 750-753, 853 Social work and public administration 9

Comm 800-804 Education Note survey of Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D) was excluded from this survey.

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB iii iii

3. SOC matched to Eurostat codes SOC group SOC sub-group Eurostat codeChemical w astes solvents 1.1Chemical w astes acid/alkali 1.2Chemical w astes used oil 1.3Chemical w astes catalysts 1.4Chemical w astes w aste from chemprep 2Chemical w astes residues 3.1Chemical w astes sludges (chemical) 3.2Health care Health care 5Metallic w astes Metallic w astes 6Non-metallic w astes glass 7.1Non-metallic w astes paper&card 7.2Non-metallic w astes rubber 7.3Non-metallic w astes plastic 7.4Non-metallic w astes w ood 7.5Non-metallic w astes textile 7.6Discarded equipment ELVs 8.1Discarded equipment batteries 8.41Discarded equipment other discarded equipment 8.2, 8.43Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) incl. in 8.2, 8.43Animal & vegetable wastes food 9.11Animal & vegetable wastes manure 9.3Animal & vegetable wastes other animal & vegetable w astes 9 excl. 9.11 & 9.3Mixed (ordinary) wastes household 10.1Mixed (ordinary) wastes undifferentiated 10.2Mixed (ordinary) wastes sorting residues 10.3Common sludges sludges (common) 11 excl. 11.3Common sludges dredgings 11.3Mineral w astes combustion 12.4Mineral w astes contaminated soils 12.6Mineral w astes solidified mineral w astes 13Mineral w astes other mineral wastes 12 excl. 12.4 & 12.6 Source: This and the much larger table of the relationship between EWC (ca 970 codes) and the SOC classifications (not reproduced here), were supplied by Alan Bell at the Environment Agency

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB iv iv

4. Standard Container Types Container Group Container Type Volume (cubic metres)Front-end loader 6 yd3 front-loader 4.6Front-end loader 8 yd3 front-loader 6.1Front-end loader 10 yd3 front-loader 7.6Rear-end loader 8 yd3 rear-loader 6.1Rear-end loader 10 yd3 rear-loader 7.6Rear-end loader 12 yd3 rear-loader 9.2Rear-end loader 14 yd3 rear-loader 10.7Rear-end loader 16 yd3 rear-loader 12.2Large container - RoRo 15 yd3 RoRo 11.5Large container - RoRo 18 yd3 RoRo 13.8Large container - RoRo 20 yd3 RoRo 15.3Large container - RoRo 25 yd3 RoRo 19.1Large container - RoRo 30 yd3 RoRo 23Large container - RoRo 35 yd3 RoRo 26.8Large container - RoRo 40 yd3 RoRo 30.6Wheeled bin 1100 litre bin 1.1Wheeled bin 660 litre bin 0.66Wheeled bin 240 litre bin 0.24Wheeled bin 120 litre bin 0.12Paladin Paladin 850 0.85Paladin Paladin 560 0.56Chamberlain Chamberlain 940 0.94Chamberlain Chamberlain 720 0.72IBC 1200 litre IBC 1.2IBC 1100 litre IBC 1.1Drum/barrel 200 litre drum 0.2Drum/barrel 120 litre drum 0.12Drum/barrel 30 litre drum 0.03Refuse sack Standard refuse sack 0.08 Sources: Various sources used including container manufacturers and waste management companies

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB v v

5. Conversion Factors

SOC group SOC sub-group Waste typeConversion

factorChemical wastes sludges 0.92Chemical wastes petrol and similar fuels 0.72Chemical wastes spent carbon and carbon-containing wastes 0.24Chemical wastes liquids and oils 0.9Chemical wastes powders 0.36Health care clinical waste incl. blood and organs 0.2Metallic wastes metal filings and turnings 0.3Metallic wastes ferrous cans - compacted 0.5Metallic wastes ferrous cans - whole 0.09Metallic wastes aluminium cans - compacted 0.2Metallic wastes aluminium cans - whole 0.04

Non-metallic wastes glass glass pieces (eg. waste from manufacture of glass products) 0.57Non-metallic wastes glass glass powders and small particles 1.21Non-metallic wastes glass glass bottles - whole 0.36Non-metallic wastes paper&card paper/card pulps and fibres 0.9Non-metallic wastes paper&card paper/card packaging and newspaper - whole 0.2Non-metallic wastes paper&card paper&card packaging and newspaper - compacted 0.51Non-metallic wastes rubber end-of-life tyres 0.47Non-metallic wastes plastic plastic packing and shavings - compacted 0.32

Non-metallic wastes plasticplastic packing and shavings/turnings from manufacture of plastic products 0.22

Non-metallic wastes plastic plastic bottles - whole 0.02Non-metallic wastes plastic plastic bottles - compacted 0.3Non-metallic wastes plastic plastic film - compacted 0.5

Non-metallic wastes woodsawdust, shavings and other small pieces from wood processing 0.25

Non-metallic wastes wood pallets and other wooden packaging 0.11Non-metallic wastes textile textile fibres 0.61Non-metallic wastes textile cloths, off-cuts and other textile pieces 0.2Discarded equipment batteries batteries 1.35Discarded equipment other discarded equipment fluorescent tubes 0.19Discarded equipment other discarded equipment components, electronic equipment and similar items 0.3Animal & vegetable wastes general food waste 0.28Animal & vegetable wastes sludges 0.92Animal & vegetable wastes green/garden wastes - not compacted 0.24Animal & vegetable wastes green/garden wastes - compacted 0.61Animal & vegetable wastes oils and fats 0.61

Mixed (ordinary) wastes mixed wastes similar to mixed municipal waste - compacted 0.26Mixed (ordinary) wastes mixed wastes with similar profile to mixed municipal waste 0.11Common sludges sludges 0.92Mineral wastes slags (eg. furnace slags) 1.08

Mineral wastes waste gravel, crushed rocks and other powdery mineral wastes 1.23Mineral wastes flue-gas dust and similar 0.74Mineral wastes ash and boiler dust 0.5

Sources: A number of sources were used to collect this data, including: 1. Conversion Factor v EWC Code, supplied by the Environment Agency, and used in previous C&I waste surveys (>1,200 options) 2. The Standard Volume to Weight Conversion Factors, published by the EPA

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB vi vi

6. Standard Items

Sources: Various, including the FRN standard weights list

SOC group SOC sub-group Item Item Weight (kg)Metallic wastes Metallic wastes Drums, steel, empty ca 200l 18Non-metallic wastes rubber Tyre - car 10Non-metallic wastes rubber Tyre - Commercial Vehicle 30Non-metallic wastes plastic Drums, plastic, empty ca 200l 10Non-metallic wastes plastic IBC, Empty ca 1,000l 70Non-metallic wastes wood Pallet 20Discarded equipment batteries Battery - car 18Discarded equipment batteries Battery - commercial vehicle 25Discarded equipment other discarded equipment Mattress 40Discarded equipment other discarded equipment Furniture - office 25Discarded equipment other discarded equipment Chairs - office 12Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Fluorescent tube 1Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Computer - full 28Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Dishwasher 50Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) W ashing Machine 75Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Freezer 45Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Fridge 45Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Microwave cooker 17Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Photocopier 50Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Printer - for computer 6Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Television set 20Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Video recorder 11Discarded equipment WEEE (other equipment) Cooker 52.5

APPENDICES

Study to fill the Evidence Gaps for C&I Waste Streams in NW England For North West RTAB vii vii

7. Example Companies

The following give an example of the types of company surveyed, and their attitude to their waste production and recycling: Trinity Mirror - Oldham

Trinity Mirror Printing Oldham Ltd is a newspaper printing site for national and regional titles, such as the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The People, Racing Post, The Independent, and Guardian Regional Titles. As a major printing site the company is committed to improving its environmental impact and in doing so has recently achieved BS 8555 Phase 3 for its environmental management system.

Through developing an

environmental management system, waste segregation has been key to getting everyone involved. Throughout the site, there are various different collection points for different materials including hazardous waste that can be reclaimed. To ensure the best price is sought for paper waste, white paper and printed paper is separated. Littlewoods

Littlewoods Shop Direct Home, based in Merseyside have taken significant steps to improve their waste management practices and reduce the amount of waste produced by the site that is sent to landfill. The site houses a large number of employees.

For office staff, a number of bins have been provided to enable the recycling of paper, aluminium cans, and plastic cups. The site also has a cardboard baler to enable cardboard packaging to be recycled. The site also recycles wood used on site. The waste management practices are well organised and managed and appeared to be working well to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. Security Window Shutters Limited Security Window Shutters Limited manufacture a range of metal window and door shutters. They are a medium sized company based in the Vale of Lune near Lancaster. Various waste bins are located around the site to enable employees to segregate as much waste as possible. Paper, card, metal and wood are all recycled, representing over 57% of total waste generated by the business - and all of the waste that currently can be recycled.

Documents

Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & … › elibrary › Content › Internet › 538 › ...Report Title: Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial & Industrial Waste Streams