SAF13-P29
16 October 2012
Environmental Management
Subject:
HSE Committee Annual Environmental Report for 2012/13
Origin:
Environmental Manager, Nik Hunt
Purpose of the report
To provide a report on environmental management activities in the following areas for the year
2012/2013:
1. Progress against Development Plan targets
2. Environmental Management System Update
3. Environmental Incidents
4. Processes and Procedures
5. Implementing and Embedding Environmental Management in Schools
6. Current waste data
7. Legislation
8. Training
9. H,S & E Clause on Job Descriptions
Executive Summary:
2012/13 was a successful year overall with good progress on the development plan targets in
particular the achievement of EcoCampus Gold. The reduction in food waste not only meant the
achievement of the development plan target but also helped in the improvement of the waste figures
which saw overall recycling surpass 75% and onsite recycling surpass 50%. Although some
development plan targets were not met there is sound justification for not doing so and carrying these
over to the new plan. There are 12 items on the new plan which will be a challenge to achieve but
need to be targeted. A key target for 2014 will be EcoCampus Platinum which the EMS manager is
reporting on. Incident monitoring and reporting is a major feature of this report and the number of
incidents demonstrates the importance of both increasing awareness as well as Operational Controls
and response procedures. To that end three documents accompany this report and the
Committee are requested to approve these for publication. The development of the
Sustainability Teams relationship with Schools and Service Departments is demonstrated in the
Operational Control 3.6.34 which sets out how Environmental Management will be embedded within
in these areas. Finally the report notes the need to review the impact of changes to the Site Waste
Management Plan Legislation and the training undertaken.
Update on Activities:
1. Progress against Development Plan targets
The development plan for 2012/13 can be seen in Appendix 2 with commentary of progress
against each task. Of the seven key tasks two were fully completed, two achieved their
targets for the year but are on-going projects, (food waste and EcoCampus) and one was realigned to a review of caretaking which is on-going this year. The project to create a site
compound has constantly been deferred due to concerns over site availability and funding
and the review of Site Waste Management Plans has been on hold pending an expected
legislative change. The Balanced Score Card version of this is in Appendix 3.
The development plan for 2013/14 is detailed in Appendix 4, although this has yet to receive
management approval. It includes the above items carried over as well as a number of
projects which were started over the last few months and some key projects for the year to
come.
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2012
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 1 of 15
2. Environmental Management System (EMS) Update
Jo Shields is attending as EMS Manager to present an update on the EMS.
3. Environmental Incidents
There have been a number of environmental incidents during the course of the year and
these are now summarised in Appendix 5. Some of these have occurred since the committee
last met including some of a minor and major nature. The following summarises the more
major incidents.
3.1 On the 7th August a spill of emulsion paint occurred in the back of a University
maintenance vehicle. The driver sought advice from the Environmental Manager but was
unable to reach him (I was delivering training on spill response….) and as a result
endeavoured to wash the vehicle out. This unfortunately occurred in close proximity to a
surface water drain and the brook alongside Ashby Road. As a result a pollution incident
occurred with emulsion paint being washed into the brook.
Fortunately the missed call was returned within a short period of the vehicle being washed
out and a prompt clean-up was instigated of the drain and affected brook area.
We were however duty bound to inform the Environment Agency and as a result the
University have been issued with a warning letter (see Appendix 1). What this letter does
not say is that we were praised by the investigating EA Officer as follows:
Dear Mr Hunt,
Thank you for your prompt action in reporting the incident involving the spillage of emulsion
paint into the Burleigh Brook earlier today. After speaking to you it was obvious that you take
the protection of the environment and the reputation of the university very seriously. Although
the incident was caused by a member of your staff, which I’m sure will be dealt with through
training and education. The response to the incident by yourselves stopped it from escalating
out of all proportion. Although emulsion paint at the levels spilled are not likely to have a
major environmental impact, it is very visible and if it had not been dealt with so efficiently
then I am sure there would have been numerous calls from members of the public, which
would have then ramped up our own response.
So again, thank you for reporting it so promptly and also for dealing with it in such a
professional manner.
If you need any advice on any aspect of incident response please feel free to contact me.
Regards
Lee Whitehouse
Environment Officer
Leicestershire & South Notts Land & Water Team
As a result of this incident two new operational controls have been drafted and put forward
for approval in the next section.
At this point however it seems pertinent to provide an update on marking of the drains:
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 2 of 15
The concept of marking drains as previously
suggested (Red, Blue and a yellow fish) was
challenged within Facilities Management in respect of
the initial cost, ongoing cost and how this would look
aesthetically. Whilst I still believe it would be
beneficial to undertake the marking (and incident 3.4
lends further support to the argument) I have been
asked to look at alternatives.
One alternative would be to put interceptors on all
drain outlets into the brook(s) but interceptors are
generally for trapping silt and oils/fuel. They would
not normally prevent liquids such as the emulsion
paint from entering the brook although they would
provide a delay mechanism but this only works if
individuals are aware of what they have done. As
there are approximately a dozen discharge points into
the brook along Ashby Road alone this could be
exceedingly expensive and disruptive in respect of
their installation. Possibly less however than a fine
and clean-up costs.
Another alternative I have come across (more an
American thing it seems) is depicted in the images to
the right. The top image shows the idea in use, the
middle image shows how ours might look and the
bottom image shows how these are held in place.
We are currently awaiting a quote. Once we have a
price for these a decision will be made and the
proposed communication to staff and students can be
undertaken. It was felt the communication could not
be done until October anyway due to the significant
amount of staff and students who would not have
been around in the summer.
3.2 On the 5th August a report was received regarding the incorrect disposal of waste in a
University waste skip near Hazlegrave. In the process of trying to speak to the contractor
in question an insecure site compound (also reported under Health & Safety), and in
particular an insecure fuel bowser, were discovered. This sort of thing is considered a
high risk by the EA as anyone tampering with this could have caused a spill which poses a
risk to drains and subsequently the brook. The contractor was subsequently instructed
not only to remove the waste for correct disposal but also to ensure the compound and
the fuel bowser remain secure when not manned as well as to clear up a number of oil
spills. Further work is required to create a guidance document for contractors on what
their responsibilities, and our expectations, are.
3.3 On the 6th August a report was received regarding the incorrect disposal of waste in a
contractors skip outside the Sir Richard Morris building. Waste Electrical and Electronic
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 3 of 15
Equipment (WEEE) was being disposed of in this skip which is contrary to seven different
pieces of waste legislation and why the University has a WEEE process. The contractor
was requested to remove the items and the department instructed to use the correct
process. This also needs to go in the guidance document for contractors on what their
responsibilities, and our expectations, are.
3.4 On the 27th September a routine investigation of a drainage problem around the Athletics
Track identified sewage in a surface water drain running under this area with a discharge
point to a storm dyke adjacent to Ashby Road. This dyke feeds the Burleigh Brook at the
point where it becomes Wood Brook. The sewage was quickly traced back to the Rutland
building and a series of toilets isolated from use until further notice. The investigations
identified:
 Because the discharge point was below the surface level of the soil in the dyke it is
unlikely that there was any (or a significant) pollution of the brook
 It is likely that the first factor caused the blockage in the surface water drain as the
solids had no means of discharge.
 It was first thought that the refurbishment of the building had been the cause of
discharge to the incorrect drain but it would appear that an existing foul drain (but from
hand washing sinks only) may have always discharged to this particular surface drain.
As it was questionable whether a pollution incident had occurred it was decided to discuss
this matter informally with our local EA Officer rather than report it formally. Fortunately
the EA Officer felt that given the circumstances and the above description, along with a
lack of reported pollution in the brook itself, it was not necessary to formally report the
situation, thus avoiding any further formal action (letter, fines……).
The incident does however show both the importance of ensuring our drains are clearly
marked, mapped and recorded, something which is poor particularly in areas of the
campus which have not undergone works since the introduction of CAD based drawings.
It also shows the importance of maintaining an open and positive relationship with the
Environment Agency.
4. Processes and Procedures
As a result of the pollution incident two new Operational Controls have been drafted for
approval, these accompany this report but are:
1. Vehicle Washing On Campus (Paper 1) – to provide guidance on where vehicles can be
washed and highlight the risks of pollution of the surface water drains and brooks.
2. Transporting Liquids in Vehicles (Paper 2) – to provide guidance on safe practice when
carrying liquids which may spill and pose a risk of pollution of the surface water drains and
brooks.
These two documents will be circulated to all departments who have vehicles (there are 19
staff contacts listed for insurance purposes) along with all Operations Managers, Tenants and
the Monday Bulletin. There will also need to be a communication to students pertaining to
vehicle washing. They will also be available on the Sustainability Website.
In addition an Emergency Response Procedure for spills, leaks and floods has also now
been drafted and accompanies this report. (Paper 3)
All three documents are attached and the Committee are asked to approve these for
introduction as part of the Environmental Management System as means of preventing
and mitigating incidents such as those detailed.
It had been hoped to present the “Management of Laboratory Reagents, Chemicals and
Solvents” document, at this meeting but it is still being finalised and there was already a
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 4 of 15
significant amount within this report. It will therefore be presented at the next meeting for
approval.
5. Implementing and Embedding Environmental Management in Schools
As part of our works to implement and embed Environmental Sustainability in the Schools and
Service Departments we have consulted with the ten Operations Managers and presented to
them the Operational Control 3.6.34. (See accompanying paper 4). In summary this details
that the expectations of Schools and Service departments is to adopt and promote the Policy
and Standards, embrace the Objectives, Targets and Strategies and implement the
Operational Controls. A Charter has been created with the support of the VC (and will be
passed around) which the Schools and Service Departments are being asked to sign up to
and this, along with the Policy and Standards, are to be displayed on staff and student
noticeboards. The Sustainability Team will then be creating Action Plans in consultation with
each School and Service Departments HSE Committee in support of the central strategies.
As process 3.6.34 contains simplified expectations of Deans, Heads of Service Sections and
Operations / Operational Managers it is proposed that the document titled “Responsibilities of
Deans in Relation to Health, Safety & Environmental Management” can have the two pages of
environmental responsibilities removed. (See accompanying paper 5).
6. Current waste data
The table in Appendix 6 details the HESA waste return for 2012/13 along with the previous
year’s data. As this includes construction waste, which distorts the overall figures, an
additional table is shown in Appendix 7 which details the data excluding construction waste.
From this it can be seen that:
 Waste overall reduced by 252.7 tonnes or 12%, - there are a number of factors which
may have influenced this including the closure of Falkner Eggington for 12 months as
well as a general reduction in waste.
 The overall recycling rate was 76.58% up 4.7% and means we have surpassed the
waste strategy target of 75% by 2015.
 Diversion from landfill (i.e. Used to Create Energy) also increased by 0.8% to 18.2%
surpassing the strategy target of 15%. This now needs to be maintained with a target
of 20% by 2015.
 The targeted 10% reduction in food waste was surpassed with a 35 tonne or 15%
reduction achieved. Further works is being undertaken in this area again this year as
food waste still accounts for about 11% of the day to day waste. Food waste
segregation is also being introduced into 4 of the self-catering halls.
 Although the recycling rate achieved overall surpassed 75% this still relies heavily on
our waste contractors processing of the general waste which leaves site. On site
recycling levels were:
o Non Residential – 59%
o Residential – 46% (30% in halls of residence)
o Overall 52% an increase of 3% on the previous year
The 30% halls recycling is an increase of 8% on the previous year (following an adjustment /
correction of the previous year’s figures). The recycling included 8 Tonnes donated to the
British Heart Foundation as the students departed and a further 1 Tonne of crockery which
the students left behind and which was washed and donated to a number of local charities.
Graphical representations of how our waste processing has progressed over the last four
years follows.
Waste to Landfill:
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 5 of 15
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Non Residential Other
50.0%
Residential Other
40.0%
Total Other
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Recycling:
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Non Residential Recycled
40.0%
Residential Recycled
30.0%
Total Recycled
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Energy Recovery:
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
Non Residential Used to Create
Energy
10.0%
Residential Used to Create
Energy
Total Used to Create Energy
5.0%
0.0%
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Waste by type through on site segregation:
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 6 of 15
Waste type, tonnes, percentage of total.
7. Legislation
The legislation in respect of Site Waste Management Plans has been rescinded by
Government as part of its Red Tape Challenge. This was the legislation which required all
new build and refurbishment projects over £300k to have a site waste management plan
detailing how waste will be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle, Recover, Landfill). Although the legislation no longer applies it is clear from the
communications both from Government and our own sector (EAUC) that it is expected that
these plans will continue to be expected / requested. FM Management have previously
indicated that they will also continue in this vein but a formal procedure needs to be produced
but with additional guidance for smaller contracts on their requirements and our expectations.
8. Training
 EMS Briefings are being delivered to key staffs that are identified as having a role or
responsibility in respect of the Environmental Management System
 Spill Awareness Training – a third day’s training was held in August and as a result
over 100 staff have now received this training. To date £5K has been invested in spill
response kits and materials with several instances of this being used already.
9. H, S & E Clause on Job Descriptions
Cathy and I have been pushing to have a standard clause on all Job Descriptions / Person
Specifications, the following is what we would like / are happy at but HR feel this is too wordy.
The Committee are asked to comment.
JD: All employees have a legal responsibility to understand, apply and implement Health,
Safety and Environmental policies, standards and procedures for the protection of
themselves, others and the environment, commensurate with their level of appointment.
PS: An understanding that you will be required to co-operate with the University and coworkers, including undertaking any training, in order to help everyone meet their legal
requirements and discharge their duties and responsibilities in a safe and environmental
manner.
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 7 of 15
Appendix 1:
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 8 of 15
SAF13-P29
16 October 2012
Appendix 2:
OBJECTIVE
Introduce the new
Sustainability
Structure and
Governance
Sustainability Policy
& Strategy Review
Eco Campus Project
Proposed Recycling
Compound on
Holywell Park
Staffing Restructure
of Environmental
Operatives
Reduce Food Waste
Review of SWMP
(Site Waste
Management Plans)
& contractors used.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2012/13 – end of year report
WHY COMPLETE THIS
OBJECTIVE
BUDGETED
COST OR
ESTIMATED
SAVING
WHAT WILL BE
THE EVIDENCE
OR MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
WHEN WILL
THIS BE
COMPLETED
BY
Clearer structure with
improved attendance
and communication
Sept 2012
Clearer policy and
strategy structure
Dec 2012
£6,900 + VAT P.A.
Gold by Dec 2012 and
Platinum in 2013/14
leading to ISO 14001.
2 year project to
achieve Platinum
To reflect the request to simplify
the structure and enhance Snr
Management buy in and
responsibility.
To improve the communication of
the Sustainability Policies and
Strategies.
University project to deliver Eco
standard. This objective includes
a number of sub-objectives which
will be detailed separately.
To enable increased recycling
and financial gain from sale of
baled materials
Nil cost or direct
saving although time
requirements should
be improved.
Nil Cost
Likely set up cost
TBC but estimated at
£150-250K.
Increase in recycling
and an income stream
to offset costs.
Summer 2013
To reduce the operational overlap
of as well as providing a more
cost effective and flexible solution
for waste collections and disposal
Disposal of food waste is costly
but the wasted procured goods
are even more costly.
Improved Service
and potential to save
costs as well as
generate an income.
Reduction will save
£120 in waste costs
but £2000 in material
costs (per tonne)
Nil cost but could
result in an income
stream if contractors
use Wastecycle.
Improved Service and
cost efficiencies of
collection
Easter 2013
Reduction in waste bill
& working process.
Dec 2012
Better understanding of
SWMP’s and
standards as well as
use of Wastecycle.
Dec 2012
We need to understand waste
produced and recycled as part of
building and refurbishment works
to improve on HESA stat returns.
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2012
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 9 of 15
TO BE
DELIVERED
BY
COMMENTS
Nik Hunt
Complete
Nik Hunt, Jo
Hasbury &
Greg Watts
Complete
Nik Hunt, Jo
Hasbury &
Amy James
Nik Hunt
Nik Hunt
Nik Hunt &
Mark Gane
Nik Hunt
Complete - On
target for
Platinum in
2014
Site still not
confirmed and
funding
currently
unlikely
Now aligned
with caretaking
review and in
progress
Complete 15%
reduction
achieved in
2012/3
Not started
Appendix 3:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2012/13 – end of year report
BALANCED SCORECARD QUADRANT
Processes / Finance / Customers / People
STRATEGIC AIMS IMPLEMENTATION
What you intend to do and where does it
link to the implementation plan.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR
Indication of success.
STRATEGIC/OBJECTIVE MEASURES
End Result
ACTION PLAN - Stages of Action
1
Development of the EMS to ISO14001
2
3
Delivering on the Waste Hierarchy
Putting people in the right roles
4
5
Develop and deliver training
Investment in infrastructure
6
Leading Positive Change
PROCESSES
Encourages the identification of measures that answer the question "What must we excel at?"
Development of Environmental Sustainability
Development of the stakeholder awareness and competency, as well as the human, physical and
process infrastructure, providing efficient and cost effective environmental management.
The effective, cost efficient, and legally compliant, management and mitigation of environmental impacts
and risks, aesthetic improvements and the embedding of environmental practices and procedures
MILESTONES / TIMESCALE PROGRESS RAG
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE /
FINANCE IDENTIFIED TO 2016
When elements will be carried out by
By end of 2014 - ON TARGET
Ongoing funding of EMS £7K pa
Ongoing - ON TARGET
By Summer 2013 - Dependent on outcome of current
review
Ongoing - Some planned but needs to be ongoing
Bins - ongoing for next 3 years, waste compound
2013 - Limited funding available
Ongoing - Pending IBO review and relaunch
All roles to be maintained
Role restructure - staff costs may increase
but will be offset by cost savings
Possible Training Costs
Possible £150-200K for waste compound.
Bin investment External £60K, Internal £45K,
both over 3 years.
A relaunch of IBO is underway and a project
team is being established to review the
Sustainability Branding over the next 12
months.
Avoid cost increases of £15K pa
7 Cost effective management
Ongoing - ON TARGET
IMPACT
3
LIKELIHOOD
3
COMMENT
Impact on all items is 2-3 as is the likelihood, with the exception of Item 5 which has a likelihood of 4 which
makes that item HIGH risk
Objective meeting targets and on time
Objective not progressing to a clear plan or behind schedule
Appendix 4:
Objective significantly behind schedule or no clear plan
Not yet started
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013/14 - progress report
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 10 of 15
9
OBJECTIVE
Eco Campus Project
Review of SWMP
(Site Waste
Management Plans) &
contractors used.
Proposed Recycling
Compound on
Holywell Park
Staffing Restructure of
Environmental
Operatives
Reduce Food Waste
by 5%
Drain Markings
Provide Environmental
pre construction
information for
contractors
Increased “E” content
in H, S & E induction
for contractors.
Management of
Laboratory Chemicals
Joint Waste Tender
with Leicester and
possibly Nottingham
WHY COMPLETE THIS
OBJECTIVE
University project to deliver Eco
standard. This objective includes
a number of sub-objectives which
will be detailed separately.
The legislation has now been
rescinded but with the expectation
that SWMP’s are still used. LU
needs to decide how to apply this.
To enable increased recycling
and financial gain from sale of
baled materials
To reduce the operational overlap
of as well as providing a more
cost effective and flexible solution
for waste collections and disposal
Disposal of food waste is costly
but the wasted procured goods
are even more costly.
To try and prevent pollution of the
surface water drains.
To make sure contractors are
aware of our processes and
expectations along with their legal
responsibilities.
To make sure contractors are
aware of our processes and
expectations along with their legal
responsibilities.
To ensure site wide chemical
standards for the safe handling,
storage, disposal & spill response.
The current waste contracts end
Dec 2013 and a tender needs to
be undertaken.
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
BUDGETED COST
OR ESTIMATED
SAVING
£6,900 + VAT P.A.
Nil cost but could
result in an income
stream if contractors
use Wastecycle.
Likely set up cost
TBC but estimated at
£150-250K.
Improved Service
and potential to save
costs as well as
generate an income.
Reduction will save
£1500 in waste costs
but £20K in materials
Cost unknown but
could by c £5K
Saving - £20K fine?
Nil cost but could
result in contract
savings as well as
avoiding fines!
Nil cost but could
result in contract
savings as well as
avoiding fines!
Nil cost
Aim will be to keep
contract costs on a
similar or better
WHAT WILL BE THE
EVIDENCE OR
MEASURE OF
SUCCESS
Successful audit for
Platinum in 2014
leading to ISO 14001.
WHEN WILL
THIS BE
COMPLETED
BY
July 2014
Better understanding
of SWMP’s and
standards as well as
use of Wastecycle.
Increase in recycling
and an income stream
to offset costs.
Improved Service and
cost efficiencies of
collection
December
2013
Reduction in waste bill
& working process.
June 2014
Surface water drains
clearly identified.
ASAP
Approved document
for circulation.
November
2013
Approved new H S & E
Contractors induction.
January 2014
Standard document
implemented in all
departments
Contractors appointed
November
2013
Page 11 of 15
TO BE
DELIVERED BY
COMMENTS
Nik Hunt & Jo
Shields
Ongoing
Nik Hunt & FM
Projects
Not started
Nik Hunt
Alternative site
being sought &
costs reviewed.
Nik Hunt & Ellie
Roberts
In Progress
Nik Hunt &
Mark Gane
In Progress
Nik Hunt
In Progress
Nik Hunt
In Progress
Nik Hunt &
James
Stapleton
Not started
Nik Hunt & DSO
reps.
Almost complete
Nik Hunt,
Procurement
and East Mids
Needs to start
May
Summer 2014
January 2014
October 2014
and N Trent Uni’s.
Emergency Spill
Procedures
It’s Better Off Brand
Review
To provide guidance for staff on
how to manage spills both
internally and externally.
The It’s Better Off Brand may not
be fit for the future as we seek to
improve our Environmental
Management.
value to current costs
Nil cost but could
result in avoiding
fines!
Unknown cost to
rebrand everything if
it changes.
Uni reps.
Standard document
available and aware to
all.
Agreement on the
brand moving forward
October 2013
June 2014
Nik Hunt
Almost complete
Sustainability
Team & key
Stakeholders
through a PMB.
PMB being
established.
Appendix 5: Summary of Environmental Incidents 2012/13
INCIDENT
DATE
TYPE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS
RISK
STATUS
Vehicle grounded damaging
sump resulting in oil leak.
24.11.12
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Closed
Reported conversation between a
tenant and a contractor pertaining
to the discharge of a liquid down
a surface drain
Green brook behind S Building
29.11.12
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
23.04.13
False Alarm
Oil leak from ADTtaxi.
27.04.13
Near miss
Blue Brook from Snells Nook
Lane across whole campus.
Diesel spill by Kinch bus
11.05.13
EA wrote to 3rd Party – no environmental
damage.
Clean up and contractor written to.
Closed
13.05.13
Pollution incident
– 3rd party
Near miss
Oil discovered in drain gulley pot
by S046
03.06.13
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Security and the FM Builders used
absorbent granules and additional spill kit
materials to absorb. External contractor
used to clean road and drain.
Investigated and the tenant identified.
Subsequent communication to all tenants
reminding them that there are to be no
discharges to any external surface drain.
Department requested to notify us of further
experiments
Clean up and contractor written to.
Hydraulic Leak from Grounds
Vehicle
Contractors washing construction
water down surface water drain
10.06.13
Near miss
Open –
drain
comms
Closed
05.08.13
Incident
Spotted by accident, drain sealed and
cleaned up within 24 hrs. Notice out to
department.
Mainly on grassed areas and of a minor
nature – no action possible.
Tim Walton immediately spoke to
contractor – negligible amount as works
were stopped. Needs to be included in
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Page 12 of 15
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Open –
NH to
draft.
Paint washed from van down
surface water drain into Brook.
07.08.13
Pollution incident
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Visitors car leaking oil across
campus
16.08.13
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Contractors Vehicle leaking oil
28.08.13
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
WEEE in contractors skip
06.09.13
Near miss
Contractors’ incorrect disposal of
waste and site environmental
safety in respect of fuel bowser.
05.09.13
Near miss
Students Vehicle leaking Oil
25.09.13
Near miss
Incorrect waste
disposal - legislative
breach.
Incorrect waste
disposal and
potential pollution –
legislative breach.
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Sewage in Surface water drain
under Athletics Track
27.09.13
Potential incident
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
Vehicle hit bench damaging
sump resulting in oil leak.
03.10.13
Near miss
Pollution of brooklegislative breach.
additional contractor’s guidance.
Quick response but had to be reported to
EA. University issued with a warning letter.
Additional OC’s to be approved.
Security responded with spill pads followed
up by FM with absorbent granules. Visitor
asked to remove car to garage.
Cleaned up but contractor never located.
Needs to be included in contractor
guidance notes.
Liaised with PM to have the contractor
remove the WEEE for correct disposal.
Additional contractor’s guidance req’d.
Liaised with PM to have the contractor
remove the waste from the University FEL
and secure the compound. Additional
contractor’s guidance req’d.
Security and builders responded. Oil
cleaned up with absorbent granules and
additional spill kit materials.
Toilets isolated, stack to be redirected,
surface drain cleaned. Discussed with EA
Officer – no requirement to report as
contamination contained within drain.
Security and builders responded. Oil
cleaned up with absorbent granules and
additional spill kit materials.
Open –
OC
Approval
Closed
Open –
NH to
draft.
Open –
NH to
draft.
Open –
NH to
draft.
Closed
Open –
stack to
be
sorted.
Closed
Appendix 6: Waste Data – including construction
HESA
CODING:
WASTE TOTAL FOR:
2009/10
DATA
% of Sub
RETURN
total
Tonnes
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
2010/11
DATA
% of Sub
RETURN
total
Tonnes
Page 13 of 15
2011/12
DATA
% of Sub
RETURN
total
Tonnes
2012/13
DATA
% of Sub
RETURN
total
Tonnes
D73.C13a
Non-Residential
D73.C13b
Non-Residential
D73.C13c
Non-Residential
D73.C13d
Non-Residential
D73.C14a
Residential
D73.C14b
Residential
D73.C14c
Residential
D73.C14d
Residential
D73.C15a
Construction
D73.C15b
Construction
D73.C15c
Construction
D73.C15d
Construction
Recycled
Incineration
Other
Used to Create Energy
SUB TOTAL
Recycled
Incineration
Other
Used to Create Energy
SUB TOTAL
Recycled
Incineration
Other
Used to Create Energy
446.7
44.8%
0%
55.2%
0%
550.22
996.92
66.52
8.3%
0%
91.7%
0%
735.41
801.93
% of All
Wastes
28.5%
0%
71.5%
0%
SUB TOTAL
D73.C01a
Total HEI
D73.C01b
Total HEI
D73.C01c
Total HEI
D73.C01d
Total HEI
Recycled
Incineration
Other
Used to Create Energy
D73.C01
Total HEI
All Wastes
513.22
1285.63
1798.85
495.4
0
252.1
74.0
821.5
523.4
0
340.4
124.3
988.1
24137.5
0
4430.4
0
28567.5
25156.3
0
5022.9
198.3
60%
0%
31%
9%
762.53
0.00
87.99
142.45
992.97
739.69
0
137.62
222.81
1100.10
2684.50
0.00
1949.60
0.00
53%
0%
34%
13%
84%
16%
% of All
Wastes
83%
0%
16%
1%
30467.5
4634.10
4186.70
0.00
2175.20
365.26
657.16
0
36.62
126.49
820.27
751.10
0
60.39
208.62
1020.1
13128
0
2477
0
77%
0%
9%
14%
67%
0%
13%
20%
57.9%
42.1%
% of All
Wastes
62.2%
0%
32.3%
5.4%
15605
14536
0
2574
335.11
80%
0%
4%
15%
74%
0%
6%
20%
84%
0%
16%
0%
83.3%
0%
14.8%
1.9%
17445
6727.20
Other = Landfill
Appendix 7: Waste Data – excluding construction
2009/10
HESA
CODING:
WASTE TOTAL FOR:
DATA
RETURN
Tonnes
446.70
Recycled
D73.C13a
Non-Residential
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
2011/12
2010/11
% of
Sub
total
44.8%
DATA
RETURN
Tonnes
495.40
% of
Sub
total
DATA
RETURN
Tonnes
60.3%
Page 14 of 15
762.53
2012/13
% of
Sub
total
76.8%
DATA
RETURN
Tonnes
657.16
% of
Sub
total
80.1%
Difference
to
2011/12
+3.3%
D73.C13b
Non-Residential
Incineration
D73.C13c
Non-Residential
Other
D73.C13d
Non-Residential
Used to Create Energy
SUB TOTAL
D73.C14a
Residential
Recycled
D73.C14b
Residential
Incineration
D73.C14c
Residential
Other
D73.C14d
Residential
Used to Create Energy
0.00
550.22
0.00
996.92
66.52
0.00
735.41
0.00
D73.C01a
Total HEI
Recycled
D73.C01b
Total HEI
Incineration
D73.C01c
Total HEI
Other
D73.C01d
Total HEI
Used to Create Energy
801.93
513.22
0.00
1285.63
0.00
D73.C01
Total HEI
All Wastes
1798.85
SUB TOTAL
0.0%
55.2%
0.0%
8.3%
0.0%
91.7%
0.0%
% of All
Wastes
28.5%
0.0%
71.5%
0.0%
0.00
252.10
74.00
821.50
523.40
0.00
340.40
124.30
988.10
1018.80
0.00
592.50
198.30
1809.60
0.0%
30.7%
9.0%
0.00
87.99
142.45
992.97
739.69
0.00
137.62
222.81
53.0%
0.0%
34.4%
12.6%
% of All
Wastes
56.3%
0.0%
32.7%
11.0%
1100.10
1502.22
0.00
225.61
365.26
2093.09
Other = Landfill
Author: Nik Hunt
October 2013
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved
Page 15 of 15
0.0%
8.9%
14.3%
67.2%
0.0%
12.5%
20.3%
% of All
Wastes
71.8%
0.0%
10.8%
17.5%
0.00
36.62
126.49
820.27
751.10
0.00
60.39
208.62
1020.10
1408.26
0.00
97.00
335.11
1840.37
0.0%
4.5%
15.4%
0.0%
-4.4%
+1.1%
73.6%
0.0%
5.9%
20.5%
+6.4%
0.0%
-6.6%
+0.2%
% of All
Wastes
76.5%
0.0%
5.3%
18.2%
+4.7%
0.0%
-5.5%
+0.8%