Waste Data Modelling Project
Introduction
Government needs to continue the drive to improve the sustainability of waste
management in England. While climate change objectives are key issues, there is
also a number of pressing European legislative requirements that must be met
urgently. Most high profile of these is the need to achieve comprehensive coverage
of waste plans and that landfill reduction targets are met. Local authorities have a
similar pressing issue to ensure compliance with their landfill allowances and
recycling targets.
Planning has a key role to play in the achievement of these goals. Plan making and
the determination of planning applications are critical steps in delivering new waste
facilities. Both of these areas of decision making are controversial, and must be seen
as being transparent and based upon robust evidence.
The 2004 Planning Act was intended to speed up the delivery of updated plans to
facilitate the effective determination of planning applications. However, progress with
the production of new Core Strategies and Development Plan Documents has been
generally slower than anticipated. For waste planning this means sites critical to the
delivery of sustainable waste management have not yet been identified for public
debate.
Further more, waste planning under the 2004 Act has proved to be more challenging
than many other areas of policy development. Specifically, data is the key to
effective decision-making, and waste planning is a particularly data-hungry activity.
In the past, data problems have been held up as an explanation for the paucity of
effective waste planning strategy.
We are now entering the third phase of the utilisation of waste data in planning
decision making. Initially, data was only collated on an ad hoc basis, often to support
the determination of large scale or contentious planning applications. Following the
publication of PPG10 in 1999, there was a more focussed attempt to deliver
comprehensive data across the regions.
This data has been generally provided by the Environment Agency, drawn from its
returns from licensed premises. However, there are problems about the realism of
the picture that this evidence paints. This study exposes some of these issues and
explores a more integrated approach to the analysis and utilisation of evidence to
underpin decision making.
1
This Waste Data Modelling Project
This report shows how a new methodology enables waste data from a number of
sources to be combined and analysed to give a better understanding of waste
production, management and movement in a regional economy. Yorkshire and
Humber and London have been used to provide two worked examples of how the
methodology can be applied in a region, to show both the geographical movements
of waste and the flow through waste management facilities. This first report covers
the Yorkshire and Humber region.
Overall objectives of the project
The project has two objectives:

To produce a report for Yorkshire and Humber with key findings and
implications for waste management in the region.

To assess and report on the potential value of the methodology as a
model for waste data analysis in the preparation of waste plans and
strategies, including the identification of gaps in data.
Accurate and timely waste information is the cornerstone of planning and strategymaking for waste management. It is needed to facilitate effective waste planning, to
ensure we have the right facilities in the right place and, ultimately, to secure the
sustainable use of resources. The Government considers the Environment Agency’s
role in the provision of information for this purpose as pivotal.
For some years the Yorkshire & Humber RTAB has published data on permitted site
returns, hazardous waste, and surveys of industry and commerce. The Environment
Agency has dramatically improved the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of
these data. Little has been attempted however, to combine data sets and analyse
and present the data in a way which gives a meaningful picture of waste
management and how waste moves through the regional economy.
Local Planning Authorities argued that problems with waste data have meant that
certain objectives set out in PPG10 (and PPS10) are difficult to deliver. The following
section discusses some of the most common problems.
ANALYSIS: Shortcomings of the present approach
Household/industrial/commercial waste (HIC) – The general mixed ordinary
waste that comes into permitted sites in large quantities is coded as HIC
(should this now be mixed ordinary waste). This does not enable the
‘household’ fraction to be differentiated from the industrial/commercial
fraction and this limits our understanding of how waste of different types
flows through the system. We need to know this to assess the requirement
for facilities and develop policy.
Cross-boundary movements – waste is often transported some distance for
disposal and recovery. Generally, those waste which pose most risk, and
therefore require specialist treatment, travel furthest, often to regional or
national facilities, or even across national frontiers. Information on crossboundary movements is needed to assist policy development and PPS 10
2
requires strategies to take account of it. Currently we do not publish
movement information.
Double-counting – Waste sometimes goes directly from point of production to
disposal site. Often, however, it passes through one or more sites before final
disposal or recovery. If we simply total up waste ‘handled’ at sites, we
double-count or even triple-count significant tonnages. The double-counting
issue has proven impossible to evaluate to date, and the Regional Technical
Advisory Body (RTAB) considers it imperative that it is addressed, to give a
coherent view on how waste flows through the regional economy.
Wastes – unaccounted for – mass balance - There are gaps in the data. A
considerable amount of waste is not covered by the permitting system, and
goes to destinations unknown. It may be going to legitimate sites, for
example for recovery, to exempted sites, or it may be disposed of illegally. It
is, therefore, impossible at the present time to from a comprehensive picture
of waste flowing through the economy.
The lack of sufficiently detailed or statistically robust waste data is regularly held up
as a key barrier to the proper implementation of PPS10. Following the investigation
of such claims by an interdepartmental working group made up of Defra/CLG/EA and
the English RTABs, the following additional assertions have been substantiated 
A realistic picture of current treatment and recovery capacity is difficult to
gauge. Licensing information is, at best, an inconsistent proxy for actual
capacity.

The nature, volumes and movements of commercial and industrial waste
arisings can only be inferred from relatively small scale sample surveys, such
as the ones carried out by the EA in 1999 and 2003. While resulting data may
be usable at the national level, it is statistically unreliable at the WPA level.
Context: Why are these Data issues Important?
National and Regional Planning Policy to limit the long term availability of landfill
capacity and current legislation to reduce the amount of waste going for landfill is
now putting pressure on the waste management industry to find alternative
solutions. Additionally, householders are being encouraged to recycle more. In the
next few years a range of policies signposted in Waste Strategy 2007 will further
extend this pressure to industry and commerce
Society is being actively encouraged to reduce, re-use and recycle. As a crude rule of
thumb, the Environment Agency cite that for every landfill closed, there needs to
between five and ten new transfer and treatment facilities put in place. But where
should these facilities go? How many and what kind are needed?
While the regional concern is to limit landfill capacity to that absolutely necessary, it
also wishes to promote the timely delivery of an appropriate range of waste
management treatment/recovery facilities. Given that, outside the MSW management
debate, these facilities will be delivered on the basis of market pressure, there will
need to be maximum flexibility to accommodate different technologies as much of
the strategic context for decisions is only now emerging. Not only is there
3
uncertainty over data, there is a changing national policy landscape and market
conditions.
The National Waste Stratgey 2007 sets in motion a process of extending the target
culture of MSW management to the commercial sector. Given that the precise
requirements of such a move are to be finalised, it is difficult to guess the precise
site requirements of different management choices. On this basis, it is considered
that a flexible approach, supported by access to improving data, is the most
pragmatic.
The corollary of this would be a strict PPS10 interpretation which would result in an
overly sophisticated approach (in terms of current waste data and market
intelligence). This would not provide investment certainty as site allocations would
not necessarily address the location/site requirements of specific technology choices.
Of course, any opportunities for the co- management of C&I waste with MSW should
be carefully investigated.
It should be noted that all of the above represents the current situation, which is
the result of recent and rapid progress. Many DPDs were instigated at a time when
data availability was poorer.
Whilst it is understood that there will be an obvious need to properly reflect the
provisions of PPS10, it has been the consistent position of this region in discussions
with CLG that this will be unproductive if the robustness of current data does not
actually support rational, evidence based decisions. This would lead to inflexible and
overly detailed plans. Consequently, the RTAB support the introduction of flexibility
in waste DPDs as being an appropriate response to the real world uncertainty in the
circumstances.
However, this project is about more than delivering improved waste data for
planning purposes.
As designed this analysis should enable the certain issues to be identified.

Data messages – this new approach to data analysis will enable us to see
whether assumptions, estimations and proxies used in developing the RSS
waste figures were approximately correct

The analysis of material flows will enable strategic messages to be presented
on the more clearly evidenced patterns of arisings in order to support
planning strategy development and business opportunity identification.

The Agency will be able to draw methodological conclusions from this piece of
work; it will be able to determine to what extent this approach should be
rolled out across the rest of England.
4
THE CONTENT OF WASTE PLANS
Do we have the data?
Understanding how waste moves through the regional economy is critical for plan
making. Controversial decisions will need to be made on the broad locations of waste
management, treatment and disposal facilities.
In essence, PINS guidance is that the Core Strategy should indicate what waste
management developments and facilities are required; where they are to be located;
when they are to be provided; and how they will be delivered. The Core Strategy
should make the difficult decisions and provide clear guidance to enable site-specific
allocations and planning applications to be considered in both locational and criteriabased terms.
Where there are cross-boundary issues, such as the transfer of waste from one
administrative area to another, these should be addressed. This is particularly
important where there is a reliance on where waste is managed and disposed of
outside the plan area.
The waste content of the Core Strategy should be in line with the approved RSS and
be informed by the Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
The waste element of the Core Strategy should meet the specific requirements of
Articles 3(1) & 7 of the EU Waste Directive Framework, including moving waste up
the waste hierarchy and details of the geographical location of waste management
facilities and/or locational criteria-based policy against which future proposals can be
considered.
Waste management plans are those included under the plan making provisions,
including planning policy statements issued by the Secretary of State (eg. PPS10)
and local development plans prepared by planning authorities. A Waste Core
Strategy or a Core Strategy/DPD including waste policy matters would fall within
Article 7. Case law relating to the Waste Framework Directive indicates that waste
management plans should show existing/future waste management sites on a
geographical map, or include a clear set of locational and other criteria to enable the
regulatory authority to assess whether a particular site/proposal is consistent with the
waste strategy.
As with other policy areas, the Core Strategy should provide a spatial portrait and
vision for waste management in the area, set out the issues faced, options
considered, key decisions and the proposed solutions that build the strategy. As a
minimum, the waste element of the Core Strategy should:

Set out a planning strategy for sustainable waste management that enables
sufficient opportunities for the provision of waste management facilities in
appropriate locations, including waste recovery, recycling and disposal,
focusing on delivering the key planning objectives in PPS10, including the
movement of waste up the waste hierarchy;

Provide a spatial portrait of the area in terms of waste management, the
vision of how it will be and the strategy for getting there, setting out the issues
faced, options considered, key decisions and proposed solutions to deliver
the strategy;

Identify the potential for delivering sustainable waste management;

Explain how sites and areas suitable for new/enhanced waste management
facilities will be identified, including the criteria that will guide actual
allocations and the broad locations where these will be sought;
5

Consider allocating strategic sites/areas critical to delivering the strategy’s
vision, including the sites that support the pattern of waste management
facilities in accordance with the broad locations and strategy in the RSS;

Set out a monitoring and implementation framework, with clear targets and
indicators to monitor the implementation of the waste strategy and the
performance of waste policy (ies).
The core evidence base should support and justify the waste element of the Core
Strategy. The Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy will be a key
element of the evidence base, particularly for the municipal/household waste
stream. The waste strategy should be based on a clear understanding of the
dynamics of waste generation/management within the area, including estimates
of existing/future waste arisings for each waste stream, targets for
recovery/recycling/re-use of waste, and estimates of existing/future waste
management/disposal capacity, including landfill.
The evidence base should attempt to cover all relevant waste streams, including
municipal/household, commercial/industrial, construction/demolition, radioactive,
sewage sludge and agricultural wastes. PINS accept that data for some waste
streams (eg. commercial/ industrial; demolition/construction waste) can be more
unreliable and difficult to obtain. However, this should not be a reason for not
addressing the issues; the best available information should always be used, with
a clear indication of the basis for any estimates.
In some areas, waste may be transported across administrative boundaries, and
waste management facilities in one area may treat/manage waste generated in
nearby areas. In some cases, joint Core Strategies/Waste DPDs are being
prepared, and in many cases, this might be the best way of examining these
cross-boundary issues. Where a WPA is relying on waste management capacity
being provided outside its administrative boundary, there should be clear and
robust evidence to demonstrate that this is the case. This could include details of
any formal agreements/contracts covering this provision, including
location/duration, and where necessary, formal commitment to provide the
required facility/capacity in the particular area. Plans should not merely assume
that waste management capacity will be provided outside the administrative area.
National policy points towards self-sufficiency in managing/disposing of waste in
a particular area, although this might be wider than an individual authority’s area.
In London & Manchester, several Councils are preparing joint waste DPDs/Core
Strategies, although some are addressing this issue on an individual basis.
WPAs should address all waste streams arising in their area, including low-level
radioactive waste (from the nuclear/non-nuclear industries). However, nonnuclear radioactive waste is likely to form only a minor element of the overall
waste generated and will probably be dealt with at specially licensed sites within
or outside the plan area. National policy on nuclear waste is currently being
finalised, whilst a national study for the management of non-nuclear industry lowlevel radioactive waste is currently being prepared. Where radioactive nuclear
waste is produced (eg. nuclear power stations), this needs to be addressed in the
Core Strategy, and WPAs should not automatically assume that it will be dealt
with outside their plan area.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Yorkshire & the Humber: Waste Data Report
3.1 How Much Waste?
 No single source of data can be used to identify the quantities of waste produced
and managed in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. An informed estimate can
be made by bringing together data from several sources but this process is
always fraught with difficulties, particularly lack of consistency in waste definitions
and the problems of comparing different time periods.

The main components of Yorkshire & the Humber’s waste are:
o
Municipal/ household waste
o
Industrial and commercial waste
o
Construction and demolition waste
o
There are also relatively small amounts of agricultural waste and
hazardous waste (hazardous waste is a sub-set of industrial and
commercial waste)
o
Other significant waste types such as dredgings and mines & quarries
waste were not covered by the Waste Framework directive and, as they
aren’t ‘directive’ wastes are not included in this analysis.
WASTE ARISINGS
After reworking the available data to exclude double counting (using an approach
developed for this report) the best estimate we are able to make of waste arising in
Yorkshire & the Humber in 2007 is shown in table 1 below.
Table 1
Summary of waste produced in Yorkshire & the Humber in 2007 (000s of tonnes)
Waste Stream
Household
Co-collected C&I
C&I (mixed)
C&I (other)
Combustion wastes
CDEW
TOTAL
Incineration
Landfill
Lagoon
293
66
0
24
0
305
688
1,418
254
938
344
1,233
2,076
6,263
0
0
0
0
802
0
802
Recycling/
recovery
742
102
14
2,272
104
1,381
4,615
Exempt
*
0
0
0
0
1,975
1,975
Unknown
**
0
0
542
704
65
655
1,966
TOTAL
2,453
422
1,494
3,345
2,204
6,087
16,005
* most recent published estimate for construction, demolition and excavation waste
** update of 2002/3 estimates commissioned by Local Government Association
The table shows arisings – waste produced in the region. The waste management
options (fates) shown are drawn from site returns and show what happens to the
waste but not where recovery or disposal occurs. Comparison with arisings estimates
from surveys (figure 2) shows that both commercial & industrial and construction &
demolition waste returns fall more than 30% below the survey estimates. This is
thought to be largely because of waste going to recycling and recovery activities
other than permitted facilities. Understanding this issue is obviously a crucial element
in developing effective waste management plans and strategies. It is explored in
more depth in the report which follows where analysis of different waste streams
helps to identify gaps in the data that could be addressed by further work. It is also
possible in some cases, by bringing in data or knowledge from other sources, to
construct an explanation or hypothesis to give a better understanding of the waste
management issues or to identify policy implications emerging from the data.
7
Table 2
Waste arisings estimates for Yorkshire & the Humber
Waste type
Quantity (tonnes)
Municipal waste
Construction & demolition waste
Commercial & Industrial
TOTAL
2,750,000
11,800,000
9,752,000
24,056,000
source
Waste dataflow 2007/8
DTI CDEW survey 2003*
ADAS estimates 2006**
Reporting on Waste Type
The analysis of waste data in this report is based on breaking waste down into a
series of discrete waste streams designed to make site input return data more
compatible with waste survey estimates. We believe this approach offers a greater
depth of understanding, and, because each waste stream has different waste
management requirements, the analysis can identify specific problems and
opportunities. The approach helps to link estimates of waste arisings to the
strategies, policies and types of facilities likely to be required.
Figure 1. Yorkshire and the Humber: Deposits by waste type in 2007
The chart show that 77% of Yorkshire & the Humber waste falls into in two waste
streams, minerals/construction & demolition waste and mixed ordinary waste
 The main components of mineral waste main are combustion wastes (20%),
construction and demolition waste (27%), and naturally occurring minerals (soil
and stones, 48%)
 mixed ordinary waste comprises mainly ‘household and similar waste’ 74% and
sorting residues (18%). Our calculations based on information from waste data
flow suggest that 60% of mixed waste comes from municipal and 40% from
commercial and industrial sources.
8
REPORT STRUCTURE
Part One of the report concentrates on these different waste streams and on the
Yorkshire and Humber region as a whole, looking at the flows of waste through
permitted facilities and movements of waste in and out of the region associated with
each waste type of waste and with different waste management options. The core
waste streams used in the analysis are:
a) Mixed/ ordinary waste, separated into
a. Municipal waste (msw data from waste dataflow), and
b. The residual element of commercial and industrial waste included in
the ‘municipal and similar’ component
b) ‘Other Commercial and Industrial waste’ which includes a wide range
chemical waste, common sludges, metallic wastesand discarded equipment.
c) Animal and vegetal waste (primarily food and green waste) and non-metallic
wastes – which include
a. Paper and card
b. Glass
c. Wood
d. Plastics
e. Rubber
f. Textiles and
g. Metals
Table to show break down by waste type and sub-region (annex breakdown to WPA)
PART TWO of the report draws together the data available at sub-regional (county)
level showing arisings and movements and identifying the degree of self-containment
achieved. The comparison shows up significant differences between the sub-regions
and highlights the differences in waste management strategy that might be
considered.
ANNEX
The Annex to the report contains tables with the underlying data used in the body of
the report and sections setting out the limitations of the data and explaining the
analysis methods used. This report is also available on CD Rom where the data can
be presented in excel tables for readers who wish to undertake their own analysis.
9
Using Waste Streams and Mass-Balance analysis to understand the data.
Using the improved data now available from the Environment Agency’s Waste Data
Interrogator we have developed an analysis technique that uses input and output
data to model the flow of waste through permitted waste management facilities. The
drawing above is an example of how we can now identify the amount of waste
produced in the Yorkshire & the Humber region and follow it through the
management processes used to final disposal or recovery.
The approach provides a clear visual impression of the waste management process.
It shows where double counting might occur and offers a robust method for
identifying the effectiveness of transfer and treatment activities. It also provides the
best method we have been able to devise for calculating waste arisings using deposit
data.
It is not, however foolproof. In the example above we can be confident of the figures
given for inputs to landfill, transfer and treatment facilities but the recycling,
reprocessing and ‘unknown’ elements include only material that has gone through a
permitted facility. Since we know that significant quantities of waste recycling and
recovery occurs at exempt facilities or falls outside the permitting system the
recycling and recovery figures produced by this methodology will always
underestimate what is achieved in the real world. As a simple example almost all
local authority recycling takes place in exempt or unpermitted facilities as does much
of the commercial recycling of paper and card and construction & demolition waste.
The flow analysis deals with the waste that is produced in the Yorkshire & the
Humber region and what happens to it, it does not take into account where the
disposal or recovery activities take place. A separate movement analysis is needed
to understand the geography of waste management in and around the Yorks &
Humber region.
10
The drawing above shows that roughly one-third of Yorkshire & the Humber’s waste
goes to landfill, one-third to transfer, and one-third to treatment facilities of some kind
but that that is not the end of the story. After transfer about 40% of the waste goes to
landfill, one-third goes for recycling or recovery, and 20% goes to an unknown (or
unrecorded) fate. Treatment activities ‘reduce’ the waste they handle by about 25%
on average and around half of what remains goes for recycling or recovery, with a
relatively small residual going to landfill.
The main sections of this report look at specific waste streams and seek to identify
these data gaps with more precision. It is our hope that a limited amount of additional
work can fill these gaps and help to provide a comprehensive and reliable view of the
waste produced in the region and a clear picture of its disposal and recovery. We
believe the gap analysis work can be both informed and tested by the kind of mass
balance approach to waste flow analysis pioneered in this report. We have used the
Substance-oriented classification (derived from the EWC/ List of wastes) to provide
the categories for this analysis. This classification is a simplification of EWC and has
been widely used in surveys. We believe it offers a much more useful basis for
understanding the nature of the wastes to be managed and strategies needed for its
management at national and local level. It also offers a much better match to the
types of facilities and the capacity needed than the hazardous/household, industrial &
commercial/ construction& demolition breakdown commonly used for waste planning
analysis in the past.
One of main objectives of the current waste management planning is diversion of
waste from landfill. Removal or reduction of biodegradable waste is the primary
objective and significant effort has gone into successfully reducing the amount of
household waste going to landfill over the last 5 years, but landfill reduction targets
have also been set for specific waste streams such as industrial & commercial and
construction & demolition waste. The quantities of waste involved are summarised in
Table 1 above. We can see, for example, that mixed/ordinary waste deposits to
landfill in 2007 totalled 2.5 million tonnes. This is the prime target for landfill
diversion, the waste stream most likely to give rise to pollution, global warming and
local nuisance. It is also the waste stream where the greatest intervention is required,
either to separate and recycle at source or to provide facilities that can stabilise the
waste or recover energy from it.
WASTE MOVEMENTS
Tables 3 and 4 provide an overview of the movements of mixed/ordinary waste going
to landfill and treatment between Yorkshire & the Humber and other regions1.
Table 3
Landfill disposal of mixed ordinary waste: showing arisings, movements and deposits
(000s tonnes)
Waste Stream
Municipal
waste
Mixed/ordinary
C&I waste
TOTAL
Total arisings
Disposal within
region
Exports from
region
Imports to
region
Total deposits
1,672
1,672
0
351
2,023
938
617
321
145
761
2,610
2,289
321
213
2,784
1
We have also broken these movements down to sub-regional (County) level. This more
detailed analysis is in Part 2 of this report.
11
The Yorkshire & the Humber region as a whole is quite self-sufficient as regards
landfill provision. No municipal waste is exported for landfill disposal elsewhere
though more than 350,000 tonnes of MSW is brought in for disposal at the region’s
landfill sites (from Greater Manchester and East Midlands). The mixed fraction of the
region’s commercial and industrial waste is more mobile. 320,000 tonnes of mixed
C&I are exported from the region for disposal while 145,000 tonnes are brought in for
landfill disposal.
Landfill Provision
The region is relatively well-off for landfill capacity with more than 100 million cubic
metres of voidspace in existing landfill sites – equivalent to more than 12 years of
disposal at current rates of input; more landfill life than any other region. 70% of the
capacity is at sites permitted to accept non-hazardous mixed waste. Only 10% - less
than most regions – is at inert only landfills and nearly 20% is at restricted sites
(limited to accepting waste from a single producer) reflecting the needs of the
region’s economic base and the need to dispose of the large quantities of ashes and
slags produced by electricity generation and metal manufacture. Yorkshire & the
Humber is a net importer of waste for landfill overall but does not have sufficient
capacity in sites permitted to accept hazardous waste much of which was exported to
the North East for disposal in 2007.
Table 4
Treatment of mixed ordinary waste: showing arisings, movements and deposits
(000s tonnes)
Waste Stream
Mixed/ordinary
waste*
Total arisings
656
Disposal within
region
655
Exports from
region
1
Imports to
region
Total deposits
64
* separate data on MSW waste going for treatment not available from waste dataflow
12
719
This table and the drawing below show that the Yorkshire & the Humber region is a
centre for waste treatment, drawing in waste from all the surrounding regions. The
waste type breakdown shows substance-oriented classification sub-divisions; these
are useful as an indication of the different types of waste involved don’t align with
dataflow definitions of household or municipal waste.
There is no evidence of any obvious shortage of treatment capacity in the region but
the report uses waste stream by waste stream analysis to assess the utilisation of
treatment for different types of waste and to review the need/ potential for additional
facilities.
13
PART ONE: ANALYSIS BY WASTE STREAM
1) MIXED/ORDINARY WASTE
In the SOC classification mixed ordinary waste comprises of three subcategories:
Household and similar
Sorting residues, and
Other mixed waste.
We recognise that these categories do not correspond to ‘normal’ planning and
strategy targets where the inability to separately identifying household and
commercial/industrial waste from has been an ongoing problem with the use of
wastes reported using EWC2. The categories needed for waste policy
development and waste management planning are household and commercial
and industrial waste. Waste management plans and strategies have traditionally
focussed on municipal solid waste (MSW) but more recent government strategies
also have targets for industrial and commercial waste and biodegradable waste
and frequently hinge on the diversion of waste from landfill. It has been common
practice to take the HIC (household, industrial & commercial) inputs reported in
site input returns and deduct the quantities of municipal waste recorded by waste
dataflow to arrive at a figure for industrial and commercial waste.
Unfortunately, particularly in a region like Yorkshire & the Humber, a high
proportion of the C&I fraction is ashes and slags from power generation and
metal production. This waste has very different characteristics from
mixed/ordinary waste. It poses very different environmental risks and is not
suitable for the same disposal and recovery options as mixed waste.
For the purposes of this analysis we have chosen to use the SOC category of
mixed/ordinary waste and sought to separate municipal and C&I waste by
identifying and deducting the MSW component from the mixed waste totals.
We’ve done this on a site by site basis so that it is possible to examine
differences in the movements and flows of the two components. The analysis
presented below is limited to regional movements and flows to help keep the
presentation and conclusions simple and easy to follow. Sub-regional (county
level) analysis is provided in Part 2 of this report.
Mixed ordinary waste
There are three primary sources of data on this waste stream.
1) Defra estimates for municipal waste produced in Yorkshire & the Humber are
published annually. A copy of the tables for 2007/8 is attached as an
appendix to this report.
2) ADAS waste survey estimates for commercial and industrial waste production
in 2006. A copy of the summary tables is attached as an appendix to this
report.
3) Environment Agency site input returns for 2007 which identify the types and
quantities of waste taken to permitted facilities but do not separate MSW and
C&I fractions.
2
Chapter 20 of the European Waste Catalogue covers municipal and similar waste which
includes a significant proportion of waste from commercial and industrial sources. EWC
Chapter 20 does not align well with the HIC (household, industrial and commercial) category
from the UK waste classification which was superceded in 2000 either.
14
How Much Waste?
Using the site input return data for 2007 we can identify the quantities of
mixed/ordinary waste that went as inputs to permitted facilities in Yorkshire & the
Humber.
Table 5
Mixed (ordinary) waste deposits in Yorkshire & the Humber 2007 (inputs)
Landfill
Metal recycling
Transfer
Treatment
2,459,568
37,067
2,479,625
718,515
TOTAL
5,694,775
These figures, plus and minus exports and imports, are the best indicator for mixed
waste arisings in the region. The figure to use for deposits must take account of the
impact of transfer and treatment on the types and quantities of waste going for
recovery or disposal. If we follow the mixed waste through the transfer and treatment
process we can use an output query to identify the final disposal or recovery option.
Table 6
Mixed (ordinary) waste deposits in Yorkshire & the Humber 2007 (inputs and outputs)
Incinerator Landfill
Recycling
Reprocessing Unknown
Metal Recycling
0
11,484
9,835
4,721
24,871
Transfer
52,569
1,531,235
73,507
15,269
471,902
Treatment
13,350
280,454
26,339
10,118
44,907
TOTAL
65,919
1,823,173
109,681
30,108
541,680
We can then add the outputs from the transfer and treatment processes to known
deposits (excluding imports) to obtain a set of figures for waste arisings.
Table 7
Final disposal option for mixed (ordinary) waste produced in Yorkshire & the Humber
2007
Incinerator
Landfill
Recycled/reused
Unknown
TOTAL
65,919
2,459,568
139,789
541,680
3,206,956
2%
77%
4%
17%
The quantities of waste shown as going to landfill and incineration are likely to be
reliable as we have input data to confirm the totals. It is more difficult to identify or
account for the quantities of mixed ordinary waste that goes for recycling or recovery
because we know that only part of the waste that is recycled or recovered goes
through permitted facilities. Dataflow provides figures for municipal (both household
and co-collected C&I recycling) but there is no verifiable source of data for
mixed/ordinary C&I waste. Estimates based on the last national waste survey
indicate that 90% of mixed ordinary waste went to landfill around 4% went for
incineration and 6% went for recycling.
Movements and flows of mixed/ordinary waste

We estimate that around 3.1 million tonnes of mixed ordinary waste was
produced in the Yorkshire and the Humber region in 2007. 660,000 tonnes of this
went direct to landfill; around 1.9 million tonnes went to transfer stations and most
of that (1.5 million tonnes) went on to landfill. 15% of mixed ordinary waste
(650,000 tonnes) went as inputs to permitted treatment facilities. After treatment
around 40% went to landfill, 10% was recycled and 40% was consumed by the
process or left the treatment facility as a different type of waste (examples would
be paper and card or glass extracted via sorting and separation processes).
15
o

The flow analysis shown graphically below includes all the mixed ordinary waste
produced in Yorkshire & the Humber. It shows what happened to the waste but
not where the waste was taken for disposal or recovery. The second graphic
shows movements of mixed ordinary waste for landfill disposal both into and out
of the region. In the annex to this report we have included analyses of these
movements for each sub-region (county).
o

As the graphic shows most of the mixed ordinary waste originating in
Yorkshire and the Humber went to landfill, only 150,000 tonnes (4% of the
total) was recovered via recycling or reprocessing.
Some 75% of the mixed/ordinary waste produced in Yorkshire & the
Humber went to landfill within the region. Yorks & Humber ‘exports’ waste
to each of its neighbouring regions but only very small quantities went to
more remote regions
Yorks & Humber imported less mixed/ordinary waste that it exported in 2007.
Total exports (including secondary movements) were around 1.1 million tonnes;
total imports were less than 200,000 tonnes and came mostly from the North
West.
16
Implications for waste planning and policy development

Management of the mixed waste stream is the biggest challenge facing the
region’s local authorities. The detailed analysis of food and recyclable wastes in
the sections that follow show that, once separated, a high proportion of these
wastes van be recovered, but, as can be seen above, almost all mixed/ordinary
waste that has not undergone separation goes to landfill. We can conclude that
successful diversion from landfill requires more effective sorting and separation to
reduce the mixed waste stream and more waste going for treatment to stabilise it
and reduce the biodegradable fraction. However as almost 80% of the region’s
mixed waste already goes into transfer or treatment facilities there are ready
opportunities for diversion into sorting and separation processes.

The data above suggests that in order to meet the landfill diversion targets set out
in the government’s Waste Management Strategy the Yorkshire & the Humber
region will need to separate or treat ??% of this waste by yyyy and a further ??%
by yyyy. Using the regional assemblies waste forecasting model this would
equate to between x and X+1 million tonnes of waste by yyyy, and y and y+1
million tonnes by yyyy.

Insert graph showing projected waste arisings (current mixed waste arising figure
of 4.9 million tonnes multiplied by the growth rate for mixed/ordinary waste – use
MSW). Use this to identify higher and lower estimate for mixed ordinary waste
production at strategy target dates. Discuss policy impact and need for new
facilities to separate or otherwise treat these quantities of mixed/ordinary waste.
o
Insert graph showing projected waste arisings (current mixed waste
arising figure of 3.1 million tonnes multiplied by the growth rate for
mixed/ordinary waste – use MSW). Use this to identify higher and lower
estimate for mixed ordinary waste production at strategy target dates.
17
Discuss policy impact and need for new facilities to separate or otherwise
treat these quantities of mixed/ordinary waste.
Separating Mixed/ordinary waste into municipal and C&I components.
We can isolate the Household Waste from C&I in the mixed waste stream by running
a report on the Waste Data Interrogator to identify the commercial and industrial
fraction of the mixed/ordinary waste that went to landfill on a site by site basis. We
can then extract data on the landfill deposits of municipal waste from waste dataflow
and, by matching up the sites deduct the MSW component from the total for
mixed/ordinary waste. Some balancing needs to be done to include any residual
household waste that went to landfill from CA sites and to account for an co-collected
C&I waste included in the dataflow returns.
Table 8
Municipal waste arisings 2007/8 (Waste dataflow)
Collection source
tonnes
Regular household collection
1,437,000
Other household
98,000
Civic Amenity Sites
205,000
Household recycling
764,000
Total Household
2,504,000
Non-household (excluding recycling)
254,000
Non-household recycling
107,000
Co-collected C&I waste
361,000
disposed of
1,437,000
98,000
recycled
764,000
1,535,000
254,000
107,000
107,000
254,000
Yorkshire & the Humber household waste arisings in tonnes (from Defra survey)
Total Household waste
Landfilled
Incinerated
Recycled
= 2,758,000
= 1,639,000
= 359,000
= 764,000
of which
Summary of waste produced in Yorkshire & the Humber in 2007 (000s of tonnes)
Waste Stream
Household
Co-collected C&I
C&I (mixed)
TOTAL
Incineration
293
66
0
359
Landfill
1,418
254
938
2,610
Recycling/
recovery
742
102
14
858
Unknown*
0
0
542
1,966
TOTAL
2,453
422
1,494
16,005
* quantity recorded leaving transfer or treatment with no fate identified
Landfill disposal of mixed ordinary waste: showing arisings, movements and deposits
(000s tonnes)
Waste Stream
Municipal waste
Mixed/ordinary C&I
waste
TOTAL
Total
arisings
1,672
938
Disposal within
region
1,672
617
Exports from
region
0
321
Imports to
region
351
145
Total
deposits
2,023
761
2,610
2,289
321
213
2,784
18
19
Mixed/ordinary commercial and Industrial waste
Table 6
Commercial & Industrial waste (C&I) - mixed (ordinary) waste
arisings by business sector/ group 2006
Food, drink & tobacco
Textiles/ wood/ paper/ publishing
Power & Utilities
Chemical/ non-metallic minerals
Metal manufacturing
Machinery & equipment (other manufacturing)
Retail & wholesale
Other services
Public sector
Total
tonnes
364,446
153,345
5,150
67,663
43,115
85,077
437,199
810,132
238,292
2,204,419
Movements and flows of key waste streams
2) Other Commercial & Industrial Waste
20
Movements and flows of key waste streams
3) Mineral Waste

The main components of mineral waste are:
a) combustion wastes – mainly ashes and slags from metal manufacture, energy
production (coal-fired power stations), and incineration.
b) construction and demolition wastes – comprising concrete, bricks and mortar,
polluted soils and rubble, road planings, and asbestos waste
c) naturally occurring minerals – mainly unpolluted soils and stones.

Nearly 30% (2.0mte) of the mineral waste produced in Yorkshire & the Humber’s
that went as inputs to permitted facilties in 2007 was ashes and slags arising from
the regions coal-fired power stations and iron and steel works; around 25% (1.9m
te) was construction and demolition waste; and more than 40% (3m te) is
excavation waste (unpolluted soil and stones). Only 0.5% of the total was classed
as hazardous material – asbestos and polluted soils & dredgings.

We believe – based on a survey of inputs at exempt facilities carried out in 2006
– that almost as much construction and demolition waste is deposited at exempt
facilities as goes to permitted landfills; around 2m tonnes goes to landfill and 2m
tonnes goes for recovery to paragraph 9 and 19 exempt sites.

Each of these waste types present different waste management issues, and,
although a substantial fraction of this waste stream can be recycled or reused
there are no real alternatives to deposit on land for the remainder.
Combustion wastes

1.7 million tonnes of combustion waste went as inputs to permitted waste
management facilities in the Yorks & Humber region in 2007. 75% of this was ash
from coal-fired power stations and 20% came from metal manufacture.
Deposits of Combustion wastes in Yorks & Humber
21
Waste disposal option
All combustion waste
Restricted
LF
Haz
Merchant
LF
Non Haz
(SNRHW)
LF
Non Haz
LF
802,432
810,583
-
766
92,950
6,184
1,712,915
793,404
486,484
-
65
4,520
-
1,284,473
-
322,225
-
-
28,152
-
350,377
Lagoon
Inert LF
TOTAL
of which:
Ash from coal-fired power stations
Ash/slag from metal production

Site by site analysis using the waste data interrogator shows that more than 1.7
million tonnes of this waste stream went to final disposal in a landfill or lagoon
(see table above) , 4% went to transfer and 4% to some form of treatment.
Around 95% of this waste was managed by the company that produced it at
landfill sites or lagoons operated by that company and restricted to accepting
specific types of waste. Only 5% of combustion waste went to open-gate landfill
facilities.
Implications for planning and policy development:

This is all process waste, reduced to ash or slag and containing a very small
proportion of hazardous material. Any necessary improvements in the
management of this waste can be addressed by the Environment Agency through
its regulatory activities. Reduction in the quantities going to landfill may involve
significant treatment costs in order to produce an acceptable material for reuse
(probably as a construction material). Management arrangements for the disposal
of this material have very little impact on facility requirements for other waste
streams and the disposal needs of this sector will depend on the success/
continuance of these specific companies.
Construction/demolition and excavation waste (CDEW)
How much waste?

We believe a high proportion of the construction/demolition waste that is
produced does not find it’s way to permitted waste management facilities. A
significant proportion is ‘recovered’ by being used to fill and reclaim or improve
sites under a waste management exemption or is used for cover and engineering
works at landfill sites. We can track the material that goes is recycled for use as
road base or building aggregates or goes through permitted treatment facilities
but there is also an unknown quantity of material that is either reused directly on
construction sites or is sorted on (demolition) sites and taken directly for
reclamation (wood, glass, etc) or for use as secondary aggregate. This accounts
for the apparent discrepancy between site inputs and survey-based estimates of
CDEW production.

Reconciling the differences between estimates is made more difficult by the lack
of consistent descriptions and definitions and by the shortage of up-to-date C&D
and exemption survey results. A more detailed analysis of this waste stream
using the best available data at the time of writing is presented in Annex ?
22
CDEW Waste Survey 2003*
Hard C&D/
excavation
waste
Mixed
contaminated
waste
Mixed
excavation
or
unspecified
waste
Clean
excavation
waste
Total by
disposal/
recovery
option
Recycled
4,443
-
647
-
5,090
landfill engineering/restoration
44
-
31
476
551
backfilling quarry voids
150
-
433
1,987
2,570
disposal to exempt sites
348
-
1,038
1,362
2,748
disposal to landfill
42
243
313
290
888
TOTAL by waste type
5,027
243
2,462
4,115
11,847
source Defra/DTI
o
The CDEW survey estimated that a total of 11.8 million tonnes of
construction, demolition and excavation waste was produced in the Yorks &
Humber region in 2003. If we adjust this to reflect known landfill disposal
figures for 2007 the overall estimate can be recalculated at 9.1 million tonnes.
Using input and output figures from the Waste Data Interrogator and
estimated inputs to exempt facilities (below) we can calculate a total for
CDEW production in 2007 of 8.7 million tonnes – a reasonably close fit given
the different data sources and survey dates.
o
The 2007 waste data interrogator shows CDEW inputs to Yorks & Humber
permitted facilities totalling 4.7 million tonnes (table below), with a little over 2
million tonnes going to landfill. Secondary deposits to landfill after transfer
and treatment in 2007 accounted for 360,000 tonnes of total landfill deposits,
and recycling/ reprocessing accounted for a little over a million tonnes. The
waste data interrogator also shows nearly 650,000 tonnes of waste leaving
permitted facilities for an unknown fate – in this case probably as a product
(secondary aggregates).
CDEW inputs to permitted facilities in Yorks & Humber in 2007
WASTE TYPE*
Landfill
MRS
Transfer
Treatment
TOTAL
Asbestos wastes
22,143
267
3,431
333
26,174
Concrete, bricks and gypsum waste
99,781
6,457
249,678
197,779
553,695
150,212
6,452
785,305
157,310
1,099,279
Polluted soils and rubble
3,149
-
5
5,386
8,540
Waste hydrocarbonised road-surfacing material
1,098
-
24,780
1,664
27,542
Waste of naturally occuring minerals
1,783,226
14,824
862,273
326,743
2,987,066
TOTAL
2,059,609
27,999
1,925,472
689,216
4,702,297
Mixed construction wastes
source: waste data interrogator 2007
o
When the 2003 survey results are adjusted to reflect known landfill inputs in
2007 a clear relationship can be seen with the site input return results (table
below). Landfill disposal and recovery at exempt compare very closely and
almost all the discrepancy lies in the quantity of waste recycled where input
23
returns account for less than half the survey estimate. This is quite consistent
with what we know about the production and management of CDE wastes
and this can give us some confidence in the reliability of this set of estimates.
Adjusted CDEW 2003 survey data compared to 2007 RATS returns
Adjusted to reflect 2007 landfill input
survey
RATS
%
Recycled or unknown (product?)
3,556,000
1,650,608
46%
disposal to exempt sites
1,925,000
1,975,000
103%
385,000
385,000
100%
disposal to landfill
2,422,000
2,056,460
85%
TOTAL
8,288,000
6,067,068
73%
landfill engineering/restoration
CDEW landfill deposits by site type
Landfill deposits of Yorkshire & Humber CDE waste in 2007
Non
Hazardous
(SNRHW)
Non
Hazardous
Inert only
-
21,822
273
-
989
-
654
57,525
39
141
1
478
Polluted soils and rubble
Waste road-surfacing
material
Waste of naturally
occurring minerals
3,050
-
-
-
-
2,641
TOTAL all types
5,745
Waste type (SOC
level 3)
Haz
Merchant
Asbestos wastes
Concrete, bricks and
gypsum waste
Mixed construction
wastes
-
48
15

Haz
Restricted
Restricted
Land*
deposit
-
22,143
39,221
1,378
99,781
100,935
48,618
-
150,212
99
-
-
-
3,149
-
-
1,098
-
-
1,098
-
368
95,374
603,754
1,076,825
4,263
1,783,226
1,178
369
118,427
763,586
1,164,664
5,641
2,059,609
44% of Yorks & Humber’s CDEW went to landfill, 15% went for treatment,
and 40% went to transfer stations. Outputs from transfer and treatment sent
18% to landfill; 50% to recycling or reprocessing, and 32% to an unknown
fate– probably re-used as product (secondary aggregate). Summarising the
two sets of results we can see that a total of 2.4 million tonnes of CDEW went
to landfill, 1 million tonnes was recycled, and 650,000 tonnes went to an
unknown fate.
Yorks & Humber: CDEW fate
Disposal and recovery option
Landfill
Used for
landfill
engineering
2,417,159
385,000
Recycling
1,003,331
Unknown**
647,277
TOTAL
4,452,767
*adjusted to reflect secondary fate
** fate recorded as unknown leaving permitted site

TOTAL
Disposal and recovery options varied with the type of CDEW waste produced.
60% of clean unpolluted soil & stones went to inert only landfills and 40% to
non-hazardous landfills. 99% of asbestos waste (22,000 tonnes) went to nonhazardous landfill sites with cells to accept stable non-reactive hazardous
24
waste (SNRHW). All the polluted soils went to merchant hazardous waste
sites (97%) or SNHRW sites (3%).
Disposal location

The quantities of waste identified above cover the CDEW wastes produced in
the Yorks & Humber region in 2007. This data does not show where the
waste was deposited. The drawing below shows imports and exports of CDE
waste between regions in 2007.

Yorkshire and the Humber took in more non-hazardous CDEW waste than it
exported but relied on landfill sites in the North East region to take a
substantial proportion of it’s hazardous C&D waste.

Remaining capacity at inert and non-inert landfill sites was ?? cubic metres on
December 1st 2007 suggesting that Yorkshire and the Humber has at least ?
years remaining capacity for disposing of inert and non-hazardous C&D
waste, however there is only limited capacity within the region for the
acceptance of hazardous CDEW. If Yorkshire and the Humber wishes to plan
for self-sufficiency in the management and disposal of its C&D waste new
hazardous waste landfill capacity will need to be permitted.
25
Movements and flows of key waste streams
4) Segregated waste streams
This section looks at the movement and flow of the following segregated waste
streams: food, green waste, paper and card, glass, wood, plastics, rubber and
metals. We also looked at textiles, but the tonnes were extremely low and so not
included in this report.
Segregated waste streams follow a very different waste management route to the
previous major waste streams - mixed ordinary waste and mineral wastes. They
represent much smaller tonnages and the proportions going to landfill are extremely
small. The majority is recycled or re-processed.
Note, as with other waste streams, there is a proportion of waste of unknown origin,
which means that we are unable to give a comprehensive picture of movements.
Also, note that there are some major ‘losses’ from the model. These may include
losses in weight as a result of the process itself, such as composting, and losses due
to discharge as effluent. There are also ‘gains’, as waste is segregated out from
mixed waste streams, usually at transfer facilities.
This section looks at the movement and flow of the following segregated waste
streams: food, green waste, paper and card, glass, wood, plastics, rubber and
metals. We also looked at textiles, but the tonnes were extremely low and so not
included in this report.
Segregated waste streams follow a very different waste management route to the
previous major waste streams - mixed ordinary waste and mineral wastes. They
represent much smaller tonnages and the proportions going to landfill are extremely
small. The majority is recycled or re-processed.
Note, as with other waste streams, there is a proportion of waste of unknown origin,
which means that we are unable to give a comprehensive picture of movements.
Also, note that there are some major ‘losses’ from the model. These may include
losses in weight as a result of the process itself, such as composting, and losses due
to discharge as effluent. There are also ‘gains’, as waste is segregated out from
mixed waste streams, usually at transfer facilities.
Food and recyclable wastes
26

Note how small the total quantity of separated food waste is compared to
mixed waste: 128,000 tonnes of food compared to a massive 4,721,000 of
mixed ordinary waste There is, however, a considerable amount of food
waste within the mixed waste stream. Estimates are variable, but it appears
that the amount of food in mixed waste is at least three times the tonnage of
segregated food waste, and may be much higher. There appears, therefore,
to be considerable scope for further recovery, and separation at source is
likely to be the key.

All food waste goes either for treatment (68,000 tonnes) or transfer (60,000
tonnes) and none goes directly to landfill.

Around 90% of the food waste that went into treatment facilities was either
consumed or changed by the process. Thus it appears as a ‘loss’ from the
system on the flow diagram. This waste goes primarily for composting and
Knostrop ???? It’s likely, therefore, that the loss is accounted for by
production of compost, process losses and effluent leaving the process. Only
500 tonnes was recorded as going for reprocessing.

Food waste going into transfer stations undergoes storage, separation and
bulking up. From there, 15,000 tonnes goes on for recycling and a further
15,000 goes to destinations unknown. One significant outlet is power
generation.

Only 17,500 tonnes (14%) of food waste ends up in landfill.
Say something about what happens in treatment, comment on acceptability as
part of wider waste management strategy.
Movements of Food Waste into and out of the Yorkshire & the Humber region.
27
o
Over 50,000 tonnes of food waste is produced in Yorkshire and Humber and
disposed of at treatment and transfer sites in the region (home deposits).
o
In addition, the map shows substantial inputs of food waste into the region, a
further 47,000 tonnes, for treatment and transfer. Most of these imports (90%)
came from East Midlands.
28
3.2 GREEN WASTES

Total green waste arisings were 322,000 tonnes

The majority (306,000 tonnes – 95%) went to treatment and transfer facilities, and
only 4% was landfilled.

Waste going for treatment is composted and the model shows substantial ‘losses’
from the system, presumably this represents the production of compost for soil
improvement and also some losses from the composting process.

Transfer stations show a ‘gain’ in green waste of 24,000 tonnes, probably green
waste recovered from the mixed waste stream.

120,000 tonnes were recorded as recycled and reprocessed.
Movements of green waste

Most of the green waste treated in Yorkshire and Humber came from within the
region (130,500 tonnes).

Only 9% was imported, mainly from North West and East Midlands (though note
that a further 36% had no record of origin).

There were no significant exports of green waste from the region
29
30
4. Main recyclables
4.1 PAPER & CARD

Only a relatively small quantity of separated paper and card waste came as
inputs to Yorkshire and Humber waste management facilities - 155,000 tonnes in
total. This is a very small proportion of the paper and card we estimate to be part
of the mixed waste stream.

Significant quantities of separated paper and card are, however, added to the
waste stream as it passes through transfer and treatment processes (primarily
material recovery facilities). We presume this additional tonnage is paper and
card separated out from incoming mixed ordinary wastes. Thus 300,000 tonnes
of paper and card end up at facilities for recycling and reprocessing

The flow diagram suggests that, once paper and card is separated, very little
(around 12%) goes to landfill.
Origin of Paper and Card wastes managed in Yorkshire & the Humber and
movements into and out of the region.

There is little movement of paper and card apparent from the map.
Virtually all of the paper and card deposited at sites in the region was
produced in Yorkshire and Humber. The only significant import was into a
Yorkshire and Humber transfer station from East Midlands. Also, only a
little over a hundred tonnes went for treatment or transfer elsewhere.

The transfer and treatment in the region only provides interim sorting,
baling, etc. rather than final recovery, and all paper and card ultimately
leaves the region for recycling and reprocessing elsewhere.
31
4.2 GLASS

The region is a major centre for glass manufacture. Not surprisingly,
therefore, large amounts of glass – 770,000 tonnes – were deposited at sites
in the region. The vast majority was glass packaging waste from bottle banks,
a well established collection infrastructure in the region.
32

Virtually all of the glass was deposited at treatment plants for crushing, and
supplied on to the glass manufacturing industry. Examination of individual site
data shows that four plants accounted for 95% of the tonnage.

A much smaller amount goes into transfer stations (10,000 tonnes), where a
further 7,000 tonnes is gained, probably by segregation of glass from the
mixed waste stream.

A very small amount of residual waste is discarded from the treatment
process and is landfilled – 14,000 tonnes.
Origin of Glass wastes managed in Yorkshire & the Humber and movements
into and out of the region

The region is home to much of the UK’s glass manufacturing industry and
imported substantial tonnages from a wide area – at least 76,000 tonnes.

Note that over 200,000 tonnes of inputs had no record of origin, and the
likelihood is that much of this was imported too.

On the other hand, there were no significant exports of glass from the region.
4.3 WOOD

252,000 tonnes of segregated wood waste was deposited at sites in the
region. This took the form of general wood waste, sawdust and shavings and
packaging materials.
33

All wood waste went into transfer and treatment (material recycling facilities,
physical treatment and composting), none went straight to landfill.

There was a significant gain in tonnage at transfer stations (over 100,000
tonnes), probably as more wood was pulled out of the mixed waste stream.

As a result, a total of 248,000 tonnes went on for recycling and reprocessing.
The main outlets were board manufacture, chipping and composting

Only, 12,000 tonnes was discarded from the transfer process and ultimately
landfilled.
Origin of Wood wastes managed in Yorkshire & the Humber and movements
into and out of the region

The map shows that the majority of wood waste deposited at facilities in the
region originates from Yorkshire and Humber. Only 6% was imported for
transfer and treatment.

Exports were negligible.
34
4.4 PLASTICS

29,000 tonnes of segregated plastic waste were delivered to sites in the
region.

The majority went to transfer and treatment sites, and only 900 tonnes went
direct to landfill.

There was a small gain in tonnage at transfer stations – 3,200 tonnes of
plastic, probably recovered from the mixed waste stream. There was a further
35
tonnage – 2,600 tonnes recovered at metal recycling sites (probably vehicle
dismantling facilities).

The main output of plastic waste from transfer stations went for recycling and
reprocessing, and a small residual of 200 tonnes was landfilled.

A significant amount of plastic (66%) appears to have been ‘lost’ in the
treatment process, where outputs are recorded as being much smaller than
inputs. We assume this is because waste is turned into product, but not
recorded in the system as being reprocessed.

Total plastic waste recorded as recycled and recovered is 20,000 tonnes.
This is, however, likely to be much larger (see above).
Movement analysis of plastic wastes cannot be undertaken because nearly 70%
of the returns do not have information on place of origin.
4.5 RUBBER

Total rubber waste arisings were 66,500 tonnes

All of it goes through transfer stations, treatment plants or metal recycling
sites, and only 700 tonnes goes direct to landfill.

There are significant losses from the model, as 32,700 tonnes of outputs from
transfer and treatment are not accounted for. It is assumed that this is
recovered as crumb and used in rubber manufacture.

There is a gain on the other hand at metal recycling sites, where rubber is
recovered from car-breaking. (re-treading?)

Ultimately, 33,000 tonnes is recorded as recycled or reprocessed.
36
Origin of Rubber wastes managed in Yorkshire & the Humber and movements
into and out of the region

Two-thirds of the rubber waste that goes into transfer and treatment sites in
the Yorkshire and Humber comes into the region from elsewhere, including
some from outside the UK.

Clearly the region is a centre for processing (is this
shredding/crumbing/retreading?)

Exports on the other hand are negligible – we are very much self-sufficient in
rubber.

What happens to the crumb etc eventually – process/destination?

Textiles
8. Metals
General messages
37

Tonnages of segregated materials are relatively low and the amount landfilled
is very small.

Once segregated, the majority is recycled or reprocessed.

There are big ‘losses’ from the model, especially for food, green waste and
plastics. These are likely to represent the production of useful product, but will
also include process losses and discharge as effluent.

There are big ‘gains’ to the model, especially for paper and card, wood and
plastic wastes, as waste is segregated out from mixed waste streams at
transfer and treatment facilities, and sent for recycling and reprocessing.
Food waste, on the other hand, is not segregated out and is best segregated
at source.

The region has significant imports, particularly of glass, rubber and food.

Data on exports is very incomplete. It is known, however, that both paper and
card and wood undergo interim treatment in the region, but most is exported
for final processing in other parts of the country.
38
PART TWO: SUB_REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Mixed/ordinary waste inputs to permitted facilities in Yorkshire & the Humber
Site input returns 2007 (Environment Agency)
Site Category
Landfill
MRS
Transfer
Treatment
Former
Humberside
525,432
145
619,182
333,485
North
Yorkshire
501,987
11,548
183,193
38,222
South
Yorkshire
273,978
21,392
575,804
261,774
West
Yorkshire
1,158,171
3,983
1,101,446
85,035
Landfill deposits of household and C&I waste by county: 2007*
Waste source
South
West
Former
North
Yorkshire
Yorkshire
Humberside
Yorkshire
Household
193,264
768,437
380,645
365,261
Commercial/industrial
98,403
392,103
213,329
179,563
Total
291,667
1,160,540
593,974
544,824

source Environment Agency site input returns 2007
39
TOTAL
2,459,568
37,067
2,479,625
718,515
Total Yorks &
Humber
1,707,607
883,398
2,591,005
40
41
42
43
44
45
Th
ere is no reason I can think of why I can’t put a new picture here.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
ANNEX ONE
General limitations:
Waste Arisings
1) reliability - the waste arisings shown above are estimates based on sample
surveys and are subject to sampling and grossing-up errors which can
exceed +-50%
2) comparability – not all the material that is discarded as waste by producers is
taken to permitted facilities for disposal or recovery. Some goes to exempt
facilities (only some of which are required to provide waste input returns),
some is not recorded as waste because of its recovery potential, and some is
disposed of illegally.
3) Some of the waste reported by Defra via waste dataflow is co-collected
commercial waste.
Waste Deposits (site input returns)
1) Deposits data may be incomplete. Not all waste is taken to permitted facilities
for recovery or disposal (see 2 above). Facilities that are not required to
provide waste input returns include incinerators, paper mills, steel mills and
other processing/reprocessing plants.
2) Waste may be double counted. Waste that goes to one facility (e.g. a transfer
station) may then be passed to another for treatment or disposal.
3) Waste may be changed as it goes through disposal and recovery processes.
Changes may occur in waste type or form, or the quantity of waste may be
reduced or (rarely) increased.
Arisings
recycling/
recovery
Incineration
treatment
unknown fate
lost in
process
Stylized view of
waste flows
through
disposal and
recovery
processes
(transfer is not
shown for
simplicity)
landfill

MIXED/ORDINARY WASTES: Data sources:
a) Waste DataFlow provides information on municipal waste and is the only
reliable source of waste arisings. It has some limitations in that there is
no easy way to extract information on the quantity of waste that goes to
transfer or treatment on its way to recycling, recovery or final disposal; it
doesn’t match up with site input data on recycling because most local
authority recycling takes place at exempt facilities which are not required
to provide site input returns; and the waste types used in DEfra’s reporting
don’t use EWC or SOC categories and, consequently, are difficult to
match up precisely with site return or survey data.
54
b) Site input return data from the Environment Agency – covers all waste
inputs at permitted facilities (including C&D, and household, industrial and
commercial). This is deposit data recorded where waste is received, it
does not provide comprehensive or reliable data on waste arisings. Site
return data is also limited to waste inputs at permitted3 waste
management facilities and suffers from double-counting when waste from
one permitted facility goes on to another (e.g. waste from transfer stations
going on to landfill).
c) Waste Surveys – currently the only viableway to estimate waste arisings.
National commercial and industrial waste surveys were carried out in
1998/9 and 2002/3. An updated set of estimates (for 2006) has been
produced based on work carried out in the North West4. The survey
results are subject to reliability problems and, despite the update are
notably out-of-date in relation to disposal and recovery and movements
analysis (not attempted in 2006). The results do, however, match up very
well with site return data in the way they categorise waste and they offer
the only opportunity to identify the types and quantities of waste
generated by different business sectors.
d) Exemptions survey. Sites exempt from the need for a full waste regulation
permit are not normally required to provide site input data. A survey was
carried out in 2006 to gather as much information as possible on waste
inputs to these sites. However the results are more relevant to the
analysis of construction & demolition waste which follows than to the
analysis of mixed/ordinary waste below.
3
Facilities operating with the benefit of waste management licences granted by the
Environment Agency are required to provide regular returns showing the types and quantities
of waste accepted at the site. The returns are collated to produce annual reports.
4
Recognising the planning problems arising from out-of-date information the Local
Government Association (LGA) commissioned an update of the 2002/3 Environment Agency
commercial and industrial waste survey using waste production factors drawn from a survey
carried out in the North West planning region in 2006. This is recognised as a stop-gap
measure. In the meantime the regional estimates from this survey provide the best available
guide to commercial and industrial waste arisings in Yorkshire & the Humber.
55
56