Cost Assessment of Wales Environment Bill measures on Business Waste Producers

Transcription

1 Final Report Cost Assessment of Wales Environment Bill measures on Business Waste Producers Assessment of the financial implications of additional segregation / collection for typical Welsh business waste producers in the hospitality, retail, manufacturing, admin/office, education and health sectors Project code: WCB Published Date: May 2015 Research date: Dec 2013 Sep 2014

2 2

3 WRAP s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through reuse and recycling. Find out more at Written by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK, May 2015 Front cover photography: Commercial waste collection in Powys While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

4 Executive summary In October 2013 the Welsh Government launched its consultation on proposals for an Environment Bill. The Environment Bill White Paper proposed extending the separate collection requirements for paper, glass, metal and plastic, introduced through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, to include card, wood and food wastes in This requirement is applied to all wastes household, commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. For businesses, there would be a requirement to present these materials separately from refuse for recycling. It is with reference to the impacts of these changes on typical business waste producers in the hospitality, retail, manufacturing, admin/office, education (schools and higher education) and health sectors that this study is concerned. This study, commissioned by WRAP Cymru on behalf of the Welsh Government, was required to assess the costs/savings of additional segregation/collection for typical business waste producers in the hospitality, retail, manufacturing, admin/office, education (schools and higher education) and health sectors. The assessment specifically was required to assess the following business waste collection scenarios: Source segregation of all materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass, food, card and wood); Dry recyclables and food separate; Glass, dry recyclables and food separate; and, Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food as separate streams. Note, food waste collections have been considered first by applying separate food waste collections only to businesses estimated to generate more than 50 kg of food waste per week, secondly to businesses estimated to generate more than 5 kg of food waste per week and finally to all businesses regardless of the quantity of food waste they are estimated to produce. The assessment compared the probable costs of the services businesses currently use (in 2017 prices allowing for a year of additional landfill tax increase) to the costs of services specified in the scenarios. In summary the assessment has found that: Savings from each of the proposed waste collection scenarios were identified for the majority of typical businesses, with the greatest benefits for businesses producing larger quantities of waste, and for those currently without any separate collection of recyclables. Scenarios 2 and 3 (mixed dry recycling strategies) appear to provide the greatest potential savings or least cost options, for most business waste producers. The most cost effective option for smallest businesses appears to be Scenario 2 (mixed dry recycling including glass). Businesses producing smaller quantities of waste would probably see an increase in waste collection costs under each scenario, however the increase is unlikely to exceed 0.5% of turnover. Separate food waste collections to businesses generating more than 5 kg of food waste per week, could deliver savings for the majority of businesses but has the general effect of reducing savings and increasing costs under each scenario, although again the absolute increase in costs is still unlikely to exceed 0.5% of turnover. When extending separate food waste collections to include businesses generating less than 5kg of food waste per week, absolute cost increases could exceed 0.5% of turnover but are still likely to be below 1% of turnover. 4

5 Contents 1.0 Introduction Study aims This report Methodology Waste collection price data Data collection Data outputs Typical businesses Data collection Data analysis Case studies Results Environment Bill scenarios Method Key financial assumptions Assessment Results Results: Separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 50kg of food waste per week Results: Separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week Results: separate food waste collections for all businesses Conclusions Appendix 1 Calculator and price / business data updates Appendix 2 Price data Analysis Appendix 3 Typical Businesses Data Analysis Appendix 4 Manufacturing Sector Appendix 5 Example Model Inputs and Outputs Appendix 6 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for businesses generating >50kg food waste per week Appendix 7 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week Appendix 8 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for all businesses

6 1.0 Introduction In October 2013 the Welsh Government launched its consultation on proposals for an Environment Bill. The Environment Bill White Paper set out a framework for prioritising opportunities to better manage Wales natural resources, including five proposals to maximise the quantity and quality of material that is recycled. The Environment Bill White Paper proposed extending the separate collection requirements for paper, glass, metal and plastic, introduced through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, to include card, wood and food wastes in This requirement is applied to all wastes household, commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. For businesses, there would be a requirement to present these materials separately from refuse for recycling. It is with reference to the impacts of these changes on typical business waste producers in the hospitality, retail, manufacturing, admin/office, education (schools and higher education) and health sectors that this study is concerned. 1.1 Study aims This study, commissioned by WRAP Cymru on behalf of the Welsh Government, was required to: Assess the costs/savings of additional segregation/collection for typical business waste producers in the hospitality, retail, manufacturing, admin/office, education (schools and higher education) and health sectors; and Provide good practice case studies of businesses with high recycling performance. The assessment was specifically required to assess the following business waste collection scenarios: Source segregation of all materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass, food, card and wood); Dry recyclables and food separate; Glass, dry recyclables and food separate; and, Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food as separate streams. Note, the main assessment in Section applies separate food waste collections to all typical businesses estimated to produce more than 50 kg of food waste per week 1. Section applies separate food waste collections to all typical businesses estimated to produce more than 5 kg of food waste per week. The impact of mandatory separate food waste collections for all businesses has been considered in Section This report This report presents the outputs from the cost assessment. Following this introduction, the report covers: Methodology; Results; and Conclusions. 1 WRAP Cymru s research shows that businesses that produce enough food waste to warrant a 120 litre bin on a weekly basis (>50 kg) are more likely to receive a cost effective service. 6

7 2.0 Methodology Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the key project tasks. Supporting information describing updates made to WRAP Cymru s business waste performance and cost calculator is presented in Appendix 1. These changes were required to facilitate assessment of a wider range of materials presented by businesses in a segregated form, and based on the outcomes of the study price data survey. Figure 2.1 Study tasks 1. Calculator update - new sectors - new waste streams Impact assessment 2. Wales waste collection prices - price data requests - price survey 3. Typical businesses - customer record requests - business waste services survey 4. Case Studies - case study identification - drafting 2.1 Waste collection price data Data collection Welsh-specific waste collection prices for a range of containers have been sourced via several routes, namely: All Wales Trade Waste Benchmarking Group data on local authority collection prices; Direct contact with waste management companies and skip hire companies operating in Wales; Previous price survey analysis data for WRAP Cymru-funded commercial waste projects undertaken by AMEC; Internet research (some providers post their prices online); and Prices from three national waste collection providers. In total 310 prices for bins and sacks and 340 prices for other containers (such as FELs, skips and ROROs) were collated for this project Data outputs The data has been analysed to identify how business waste collection prices vary by location and by service provider type (private and local authority). 7

8 Analysis of the price data collected for this project has not shown any statistically significant differences between prices for different locations, hence none have been applied in the modelling. Prices charged by local authority and private sector service providers do appear to differ for some waste services, however the evidence is not conclusive. More detail and observations on the price data and factors affecting differences between locations and service providers is included in Appendix 2. Figure 2.2 presents the prices used in the scenario assessment for The prices represent a blend of those charged by both local authority and private sector collectors and have been adjusted to take account of the increase in landfill tax in 2014/15 only. 8

9 Figure 2.2 Refuse and recycling price matrix per lift, 2017 Container Litre General Waste (refuse) Mixed Dry Recycling with glass Mixed Dry Recycling without glass Paper Card Paper and card Mixed plastic Mixed glass Food waste Metals Mixed plastic and metals Wood Sack l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Skip yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Front End Loader (FEL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL) yd3 Rear End Loader (REL)

10 2.2 Typical businesses Data collection Information on the types of waste services businesses receive has been sourced via the following routes: Requests for anonymised customer data from local authorities; Requests for anonymised customer data from private operators; and A business waste services survey delivered through this project. Success with these methods has been varied. Requests to local authorities yielded positive results, with anonymised customer data provided by five local authorities. Engagement with the private sector yielded useful insights into commercial waste management practices and price data, however requests for data on customers to private operators were unsuccessful owing to issues such as commercial confidentiality. Requests for data directly from businesses also yielded limited usable information; while many businesses were willing to be involved, the data that was provided was partial, reflecting the lack of awareness they have in the waste services that they currently receive, e.g. container size Data analysis In total a database containing 3,663 records on the waste services received by businesses was created. All the data is from local authorities that provide business waste collection services, as follows: Table 2.1 Records on the waste services received by businesses (by source) Local Authority No. records Caerphilly County Borough Council 263 Conwy County Borough Council 1,083 Denbighshire County Council 102 Powys County Council 760 Swansea City and County Council 1,455 Total 3,663 The data includes the business sectors included in Table 2.2 with hospitality businesses subdivided into food service and hotel and holiday accommodation. It was also intended to subdivide education into schools and higher education. Unfortunately the way in which sector data was coded in the datasets did not allow for it to be categorised in this way. However, when interpreting or using the information from the assessment, it is relatively easy to identify which groups may typically represent different types of establishments. In education, groups 1 and 2 are likely to represent small scale education businesses such as private tutors, small nurseries and other smaller establishments such as outdoor education centres. Groups 2, 3 and perhaps 4 will include larger nurseries, primary schools and adult education centres. Group 4 may present large primary and small secondary schools. Group 5 is likely to only represent secondary schools, colleges and university sites. In addition, many sites in businesses/organisations officially classified as education may more appropriately fall under a different category of typical businesses. For example sites serving administration purpose may more closely align with typical offices rather than schools. Equally the impacts on university or school canteens may be better reflected by impact on typical food service businesses and university halls by businesses in hotel and accommodation sector. This observation will also hold true for other sectors, for example, 10

11 business units in the health sector also fulfil very different functions which may be better reflected by the estimated impact on another typical business type. Table 2.2 Records on the waste services received by businesses (by sector) Sector No. records Education 263 Food service 1,083 Health 102 Hotel and holiday accommodation 760 Manufacturing 59 Office 658 Retail 640 Total 3,663 Typical businesses have been defined by the current types of services and level of containment that they use for their waste (excluding manufacturing, see below). Data on the businesses from each sector have been placed into 5 groups according to the size of the containment they use for their waste. Businesses in each sector have been grouped by the size of their waste and recycling services because the volume of waste produced by a business is a key driver of their waste collection costs. Costs of business waste collections in 240 litre containers can be twice the cost of collections in 1,100 litre containers when considered on a per litre basis 2. Therefore the impact of changes in business waste management and collection requirements will typically vary for businesses according to the volume of waste they produce and the scale of the waste and recycling services they use. Table 2.3 shows estimated waste arisings of typical businesses in different sectors and groups, to show the scale of the waste produced by typical businesses in each sector and group. With the exception of the manufacturing sector, arisings estimates were calculated by the Business Waste Performance and Cost Calculator from the types of waste services received by typical businesses. Further detail on the approach taken in the business waste services data analysis is included in Appendix 3. Table 2.3 Estimated waste arisings from typical businesses by group (tonnes per annun) Sector Group (1 = smallest to 5 largest) Education Food service Health Hotel Manufacturing Office Retail Each of the 5 groups were then further sub-divided according to the types of services businesses typically receive now, namely: Refuse only: businesses which do not currently use any recycling services for their waste; 2 FWC , Business Waste Performance and Cost Calculator,

12 Refuse with co-mingled recycling: businesses which use co-mingled recycling and, sometimes, food waste services. Note, as not all current co-mingled services accept all the materials included in the requirements of the Environment Bill, typical businesses currently using this service type may see their requirements for recycling, and potentially costs, increase; and Refuse with segregated recycling: businesses which use segregated recycling for at least some of their waste. Note, as not all businesses which source segregate recycling receive services that include all the materials included in the requirements of the Environment Bill, typical businesses currently using this service type may see their requirements for recycling, and potentially costs, increase. The average level of containment used by the businesses in the group for different types of waste services was then calculated, and used to inform the types and size of the services used by the typical businesses in the assessment. In total this provides 15 typical businesses per sector, defined by the level of containment and types of services they currently use. Manufacturing Study data describing the waste services currently received by the manufacturing sector was limited to just 59 businesses. This raised concerns around the ability to apply any conclusions from this information to the wider population of manufacturing businesses in Wales. Therefore, in contrast to the other sectors, typical manufacturing businesses have been defined according to the quantity of waste they are estimated to produce, from which the waste and recycling services they receive has then been inferred. The estimated waste arisings (tpa) of typical manufacturing businesses has been derived from the Survey of Industrial and Commercial Waste Arisings in Wales The waste and recycling services typical manufacturing businesses have been assumed to receive was informed by engagement with waste management contractors, the average waste composition adopted for the manufacturing sector and lessons learnt analysing the services received by businesses from other sectors. Further information on how typical manufacturing businesses were defined is included in Appendix 4. Note, while manufacturing businesses have been defined in a different manner to other sectors they have been assessed in the same way. 2.3 Case studies Eight case studies on businesses which achieve high levels of recycling performance currently, or have made gains in performance by adopting measures that are consistent with the requirements of the Environment Bill, have been produced to support this assessment. The case studies are included at the end of this report. 3 Data from the 2012 C&I survey was not used as arisings data for small businesses (i.e. 1 2 and 3 4 employees) had not been corrected (as it was for the 2007 survey), resulting in inconsistent estimates by employee size band. 12

13 3.0 Results 3.1 Environment Bill scenarios The impact of the Environment Bill for each typical business type in each sector has been estimated for four different future management scenarios for kerbside business recycling: 1. Source segregation of all materials specified by the Environment Bill (paper, card, plastic, metals, glass, food and wood); 2. Mixed dry recyclables and food separate; 3. Mixed dry recyclables, glass and food separate; and, 4. Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food separate. Note, in the main results separate food waste collections are only applied in the scenarios to typical businesses estimated to produce more than 50 kg of food waste per week. Section discusses the results for separate food waste collections being applied to businesses generating more than 5 kg of food waste per week. Section discusses the results for, and implications of, separate food waste collections being applied to all businesses. 3.2 Method The assessment compares the probable costs of the services businesses currently use (based on 2017 prices), to the costs of services estimated for businesses in the above scenarios in WRAP Cymru s SME business waste performance and cost calculator model was used to estimate the impact of the scenarios on business waste producers. The reader is encouraged to view the internal report and user guide that accompanies the calculator, in order to understand the base data and logic that drives the calculations. The model has been adapted as described in Appendix 1 for the purpose of this study. Examples of the types of inputs used and outputs produced by the model are presented in Appendix 5. The typical businesses used in the assessment have been characterised using data from a sample of over 3,000 businesses currently using local authority collection services. When considering the results of the assessment it should be noted that: The characterisation of typical businesses is based on average containment used by sample businesses. The calculator includes assumptions on the average composition of business waste by sector and the bulk density of different waste components. Not all businesses or the waste they generate are average and hence the assessments are based on the financial impact on hypothetical typical businesses, so are indicative; The assessment only includes the collection costs which would be charged by the service provider; The assessment does not include additional costs (e.g. time/effort) to the business for the segregation of materials; The assessment assumes that typical businesses will be able to accommodate additional containers for recycling 4 ; 4 The conclusions of this study are likely to hold for businesses with limited space. In general businesses with major issues with limited space rectify this problem with frequent collections (i.e. daily). This solution might still be available with enhanced collections however it would require frequent collections of recyclate often in smaller containers (i.e. sacks, 120l and 140l bins) which tend to be more expensive of a per litre basis to larger and more traditional (240l, 660l, 1100l) bins. In general, businesses with space constraints could expect to experience a similar magnitude (%) of impact as typical businesses in same group/using similar sized services to them. 13

14 The calculator includes a wide range of waste containers and collection frequencies, which may not be (currently) available to all businesses; and, The calculator automatically optimises performance of a given waste input, defining the quantity of material available for capture in a waste stream during modelling. All scenarios have been optimised to produce recycling rates of between c.65 75% in line with recycling targets set by the Welsh Government. The calculator also provides the opportunity to optimise costs as well as performance, by selecting the most favourable combination of containers (constrained by rules on types of containers and frequencies available for different waste streams). The analysis has included wheeled bin and sack services only (with the exception of wood waste which is assumed to be collected in skips). Larger containers, for example REL and FEL containers, have not been included in the services used by typical businesses or the scenarios Key financial assumptions Key assumptions which directly affect the financial impact of the assessment include: Application of the landfill tax escalator in 2014/15 only to increase the relative price of refuse collections in Other factors which could influence lift prices (e.g. recyclate values, fuel price, VAT, inflation and further landfill tax rises post 2014/15) are kept constant; Discounts for multiple bins or due to being an existing refuse customer are not considered in the adopted collection prices. 3.3 Assessment Results In total 105 typical businesses (15 per target sector) were examined for the four scenarios, providing a total of 420 indicative results. The results have been analysed by group (size of waste containment) and baseline service type (reflecting the potential starting point for each typical business with respect to current waste management arrangements). Results from different sectors but the same group have been combined so that the general trend (in terms of costs or benefits of each scenario) for businesses using different levels of containment and services can be readily identified and compared. Full results by scenario are presented in Appendix 6. 14

15 3.3.1 Results: Separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 50kg of food waste per week WRAP Cymru s research shows that businesses producing enough food waste to warrant a 120 litre bin on a weekly basis (>50 kg) are more likely to receive a cost effective service. For this reason, the various segregation scenarios have been modelled for businesses that produce more than 50 kg per week, more than 5 kg per week as well as scenarios where collection of food waste would be mandatory regardless of quantities produced. Figures 3.1 to 3.4 present the results for scenarios 1 to 4 by group (size of waste containment) and baseline service type with separate food collections applied for businesses generating more than 50 kg of food waste per week. The pattern in the scenario results is clear: businesses which produce a small quantity of waste for their sector, such as those from groups 1, 2 and 3, appear likely to see the annual costs of their waste collection services increase as a result of the Environment Bill measures. Even businesses with small arisings which currently recycle will see their costs increase, mainly as a function of optimising performance from current levels 5 to 65 75% recycling in 2017 (depending upon sector and scenario). Businesses using a refuse only service in groups 2 and 3 may see savings as a result of lower lift prices for recycling, however these potential savings do not filter down to the smallest waste producers in group 1. In contrast, businesses which produce a larger quantity of waste for their sector, such as those from groups 4 and 5, and using refuse only or segregated services may see the annual costs of their waste collection services decrease in all scenarios, provided they can optimise their waste collections. For businesses in these groups using co-mingled recycling services, the impact appears more likely to be a small increase in costs or cost neutral. While there is a consistent pattern in the results of the different scenarios, the magnitude of the effect varies. In scenarios 1 and 4, which represent segregated recycling strategies, businesses appear unlikely to realise benefits from the improved performance in 2017 until they produce waste in similar amounts to typical businesses from groups 4 and 5. In addition, the negative relative impacts on typical businesses from groups 1 and 2 are some of the largest. In contrast in scenarios 2 and 3, which represent mixed dry recycling strategies, typical businesses from group 3 may also realise benefits from improved recycling performance in 2017, in addition to typical businesses from groups 4 and 5. It is also notable that scenario 2 (mixed dry recycling including glass) appears to be the most cost effective option for typical businesses from group 1 (those with the lowest levels of containment). Although there appear to be large increases in the relative cost of waste collection for businesses which produce a small quantity of waste, the increase in absolute terms (annual waste collection costs) may not be considered significant in the context of total business turnover. In scenario 1 (full source segregation) the typical absolute financial impact on businesses with a substantial relative increase (>10%) in their waste collection costs are in the region of just pa 6. This is unlikely to represent more than 0.5% of total turnover for all but the smallest businesses 7. 5 Current levels of recycling for typical SME businesses vary from 0% for refuse only customers, approximately 25 45% for comingled customers and 7% to 50% for segregated customers. 6 There is one example where the absolute impact is estimated to be greater than 500. Group 3 businesses with co-mingled services may see an impact of approximately 700 in increased collection costs. 7 Businesses generating small quantities of waste and turnover lower than, for example, 80,

16 Total waste costs are widely quoted as being equivalent to 4 4.5% of business turnover 8. This figure includes wasted raw materials, energy and labour, which, according to WRAP Cymru s Finding Cost Savings: Resource Efficiency for SMEs can be between 5 and 20 times more than the cost of disposal. This implies that, on average, waste collection/disposal costs for businesses may range between <0.2 1% of business turnover in the commercial sector. For industrial sector businesses, including manufacturing, AMEC s own analysis suggests this is likely to be lower e.g. <0.1 1% of business turnover 9. Therefore even a relative increase of 50% in waste collection costs is unlikely to equate to an impact of more than 0.5% of business turnover for all but the smallest businesses. Overall, scenario 2 (mixed dry recycling including glass) results in the lowest impact on smaller typical businesses, which compose the majority of the Welsh business population, and represents the most beneficial option from a business waste producer s perspective in purely financial terms. However, although mixed dry recycling generally represents the most cost-effective solution, this analysis does not consider the full life cycle of the waste material and factors such as quality and environmental/carbon impacts. As local demand for high quality recyclate increases in Wales, the relative market value of segregated material may be expected to increase and the cost impact differential with mixed dry recycling to decrease. The figures below present the assessment results by scenario. The results have been ordered by group (size of waste services used) and baseline service type (columns 1 and 2). Estimated baseline and scenario annual waste collection costs of the typical businesses (columns 4 and 5) and estimates of absolute and relative difference in costs between the baseline and scenario are also presented. Green cells highlight typical businesses which may see decreases in waste collection costs in the scenarios. Red cells highlight typical businesses which are may see increases in waste collection costs in the scenarios. 8 For example, SEPA, Waste Minimisation guidance (2006) and WRAP Cymru s Finding Cost Savings: Resource Efficiency for SMEs (2013). 9 Using information from URS/Defra, Environmental Protection Expenditure by Industry Survey (2011) AMEC estimate the average proportion spent on waste disposal by industry to be approximately 0.1% of turnover. 16

17 Figure 3.1 Scenario 1 (full source segregation) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 1 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 1 1, , % 2 Segregated 1 1, , % 3 Refuse 1 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 1 3, , % 3 Segregated 1 4, , % 4 Refuse 1 8, , , % 4 Co-mingled 1 6, , % 4 Segregated 1 6, , % 5 Refuse 1 28, , , % 5 Co-mingled 1 20, , % 5 Segregated 1 22, , , % In scenario 1 (full source segregation), smaller businesses (those producing waste in similar quantities to groups 1, 2 and 3) may see the annual costs of their waste collection services increase. The absolute level of the increase ranges from approximately or, relatively between 10 56%, depending upon group and baseline service type. Refuse only businesses are an exception and may see the annual costs of their waste collection services decrease as a result of lower lift prices for recycling in groups 2 and 3. Larger businesses (those producing waste in similar quantities to groups 4 and 5) using refuse only or segregated recycling services may see the annual costs of their waste collection services decrease. The absolute level of the decrease ranges from approximately 50 to 8,000 or, relatively between 1 27%. Larger businesses using co-mingled recycling services may see the annual costs of their waste collection services increase. The absolute level of the increase ranges from approximately or, relatively between 4 7%. 17

18 Figure 3.2 Scenario 2 (mixed dry recyclables, food separate) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 2 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 2 1, , % 2 Segregated 2 1, , % 3 Refuse 2 5, , , % 3 Co-mingled 2 3, , % 3 Segregated 2 4, , % 4 Refuse 2 8, , , % 4 Co-mingled 2 6, , % 4 Segregated 2 6, , % 5 Refuse 2 28, , , % 5 Co-mingled 2 20, , % 5 Segregated 2 22, , , % In scenario 2 (mixed dry recyclables, food separate), smaller businesses (those producing waste in similar quantities to groups 1, 2 and 3) may see the annual costs of their waste collection services increase. The absolute level of the increase ranges from approximately or, relatively between 5 37%, depending upon group and baseline service type. Refuse only businesses are an exception and may see the annual costs of their waste collection services decrease as a result of lower lift prices for recycling in groups 2 and 3. In addition, for businesses currently using co-mingled services in groups 2 and 3 the impact appears more likely to be a small decrease in costs or cost neutral. Larger businesses (those producing waste in similar quantities to groups 4 and 5) using refuse only or segregated recycling services may see the annual costs of their waste collection services decrease. The absolute level of the decrease ranges from approximately 200 to > 8,000 or, relatively between 4 29%. Larger businesses using co-mingled recycling services may not see any significant difference in their waste collection costs. 18

19 Figure 3.3 Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables, glass and food separate) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 3 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 3 1, , % 2 Segregated 3 1, , % 3 Refuse 3 5, , , % 3 Co-mingled 3 3, , % 3 Segregated 3 4, , % 4 Refuse 3 8, , , % 4 Co-mingled 3 6, , % 4 Segregated 3 6, , % 5 Refuse 3 28, , , % 5 Co-mingled 3 20, , % 5 Segregated 3 22, , , % Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables, glass and food separate), is the same as scenario 2 (mixed dry recyclables and food separate) except for a general increase in annual waste collection costs as a result of collecting glass separately from mixed recyclables. Figure 3.4 Scenario 4 (mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food separate) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 4 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 4 1, , % 2 Segregated 4 1, , % 3 Refuse 4 5, , , % 3 Co-mingled 4 3, , % 3 Segregated 4 4, , % 4 Refuse 4 8, , , % 4 Co-mingled 4 6, , % 4 Segregated 4 6, , % 5 Refuse 4 28, , , % 5 Co-mingled 4 20, , % 5 Segregated 4 22, , , % Scenario 4 (mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food separate) is similar to scenario 1 except some (complimentary) materials are collected mixed (paper & card, mixed plastics & metal). The results follow the same pattern as scenario 1 except for a general decrease in annual waste collection costs as a result of allowing for limited mixing of materials. 19

20 3.3.2 Results: Separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week The impact of applying separate food waste collections to businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week was to increase weekly waste collection costs for businesses without a food waste collection in the initial assessment by 5.50 (the assumed price per lift for a 120 l wheeled food waste bin). In general, the typical businesses in groups 4 and 5 have not been affected by this requirement as virtually all of the typical businesses in these groups produced >50 kg of food waste per week. However, for typical businesses in groups 1, 2 and 3 a requirement for separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week may have an impact. Figures 3.5 to 3.8 present the results of scenarios 1 to 4, including separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week in groups 1 to 3. For businesses in groups 1 to 3 the introduction of food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week results in further increase in collection costs. In groups 1 and 2 collection costs including food waste are approximately 10% more than the collection costs for groups 1 and 2 where only businesses generating 50 kg of food waste per week are required to use food waste services. For group 3 the increase is much more modest (i.e. <5%) because most sectors in this group (with the exception of offices) already qualified for food waste collections user the 50 kg de minimus rule. Full results by scenario are presented in Appendix 7. Figure 3.5 Scenario 1 (full source segregation) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 1 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 1 1, , % 2 Segregated 1 1, , % 3 Refuse 1 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 1 3, , % 3 Segregated 1 4, , % 20

21 Figure 3.6 Scenario 2 (mixed dry recyclables, food separate) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 2 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 2 1, , % 2 Segregated 2 1, , % 3 Refuse 2 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 2 3, , % 3 Segregated 2 4, , % Figure 3.7 Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables, glass and food separate) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 3 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 3 1, , % 2 Segregated 3 1, , % 3 Refuse 3 5, , , % 3 Co-mingled 3 3, , % 3 Segregated 3 4, , % Figure 3.8 Scenario 4 (mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food separate) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 4 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 4 1, , % 2 Segregated 4 1, , % 3 Refuse 4 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 4 3, , % 3 Segregated 4 4, , % 21

22 3.3.3 Results: separate food waste collections for all businesses The impact of applying separate food waste collections to all businesses i.e. regardless of the quantity of food waste produced, was to increase weekly waste collection costs for businesses without a food waste collection in the initial assessments by 5.50 (the assumed price per lift for a 120 l wheeled food waste bin). In general, the typical businesses in groups 4 and 5 have not been affected by this requirement as virtually all of the typical businesses in these groups produced more than 5 kg of food waste per week. However, for typical businesses in groups 1, 2 and 3 a blanket requirement for separate food waste collections may have a significant impact. Figures 3.9 to 3.12 present the results of scenarios 1 to 4, including separate food waste collections for all businesses in groups 1 to 3. For typical businesses in group 1, separate collections of food waste could result in waste collection costs almost doubling in comparison to the baseline costs. As most businesses do not currently recycle food waste, typical businesses in group 2 also appear likely to experience further increases in the costs of waste and recycling collections if separate collections of food waste are made mandatory. In group 3 it is only businesses in the office sector which did not qualify for food waste collections under the 50 kg and 5 kg de minimus rules. As offices compose a substantial proportion of the businesses in Wales, the application of food waste collections to offices results in a further increase in the estimated average cost of waste and recycling collections for businesses in group 3. Finally, where there is the potential to realise benefits, for example group 3 businesses with just a refuse service, the benefits are smaller than those potentially realised without mandatory separate food waste collections. Introducing separate food waste collections for all businesses may result in an increase of approximately 100% in waste collection costs for businesses in group 1 which produce the smallest quantities of waste. Increases of this magnitude could represent more than 0.5% of turnover for some of these businesses however it would still be likely to be below 1% of turnover. Full results by scenario are presented in Appendix 8. Figure 3.9 Scenario 1 (full source segregation) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse , % 1 Co-mingled , % 1 Segregated , % 2 Refuse 1 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 1 1, , % 2 Segregated 1 1, , % 3 Refuse 1 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 1 3, , % 3 Segregated 1 4, , % 22

23 Figure 3.10 Scenario 2 (mixed dry recyclables, food separate) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 2 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 2 1, , % 2 Segregated 2 1, , % 3 Refuse 2 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 2 3, , % 3 Segregated 2 4, , % Figure 3.11 Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables, glass and food separate) results: Impact of separate food waste collections on groups 1 to 3 Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse , % 1 Co-mingled , % 1 Segregated , % 2 Refuse 3 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 3 1, , % 2 Segregated 3 1, , % 3 Refuse 3 5, , , % 3 Co-mingled 3 3, , % 3 Segregated 3 4, , % Figure 3.12 Scenario 4 (mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and food separate) results Group Baselne service type Scenario Base annual cost Scenario annual cost Diff (annual costs) % Diff 1 Refuse % 1 Co-mingled % 1 Segregated % 2 Refuse 4 1, , % 2 Co-mingled 4 1, , % 2 Segregated 4 1, , % 3 Refuse 4 5, , % 3 Co-mingled 4 3, , % 3 Segregated 4 4, , % 23

24 4.0 Conclusions The potential direct financial impacts of four scenarios for the collection of business waste which optimise recycling rates to between c.65 75% in line with recycling targets set by the Welsh Government have been assessed. These scenarios have been assessed for a range of typical businesses in selected sectors to understand how the impact may vary according to amount of waste generated by a business and the type of waste collection services it uses. The assessment compared the probable costs of the services businesses currently use (in 2017 prices allowing for a year of additional landfill tax increase) to the costs of services specified in the scenarios. In summary the assessment has found that: Savings from each of the proposed waste collection scenarios were identified for the majority of typical businesses, with the greatest benefits for businesses producing larger quantities of waste, and for those currently without any separate collection of recyclables. Scenarios 2 and 3 (mixed dry recycling strategies) appear to provide the greatest potential savings or least cost options, for most business waste producers. The most cost effective option for smallest businesses appears to be Scenario 2 (mixed dry recycling including glass). Businesses producing smaller quantities of waste would probably see an increase in waste collection costs under each scenario, however the increase is unlikely to exceed 0.5% of turnover. Separate food waste collections to businesses generating more than 5 kg of food waste per week, could deliver savings for the majority of businesses but has the general effect of reducing savings and increasing costs under each scenario, although again the absolute increase in costs is still unlikely to exceed 0.5% of turnover. When extending separate food waste collections to include businesses generating less than 5kg of food waste per week, absolute cost increases could exceed 0.5% of turnover but are still likely to be below 1% of turnover. While increases in the annual costs of waste collection services for businesses which produce a small quantity of waste appear likely, there are a number of actions that could be taken by businesses which could reduce the impact. Waste minimisation: Direct waste collection and disposal costs may only compose 0.1 1% of business turnover, however total waste costs, which include wasted raw materials, energy and labour can be equivalent to 4 4.5% of business turnover. Implementing a systematic waste minimisation programme can result in significant cost savings from reduced raw material and waste disposal costs typically 1% of turnover 10 ; Shop around: o Choosing the right services and service configurations for the waste generated is key: services, in terms of waste streams offered and types of containers and frequency of collection, can vary substantially between providers. Businesses which produce small quantities of waste would generally benefit financially from collections in sacks or smaller containers (e.g. 180l and lower) which are appropriate for their needs. Less frequent collections (e.g. fourweekly or monthly) would also make segregated recycling more viable; 10 WRAP (2013) Finding Cost Savings: Resource Efficiency for SMEs 24

25 o o Explore innovative and non-traditional collection methods: businesses which produce small quantities of recycling could benefit from local authority systems which mirror household schemes (e.g. using kerbside boxes and sacks) and co-collect commercial waste alongside regularly scheduled household waste collections. Where available, permit schemes which enable businesses to use local authority bring banks or HWRCs may also offer a cost effective recycling solution. For larger waste producers, equipment such as balers and compactors can increase the cost-effectiveness of each load removed from site, meaning materials may be collected for free or may attract a payment (rebate). Some businesses may benefit from clustering and/or the use of smart waste technology 11 to minimise costs and make segregated recycling more viable; and, Compare prices: prices can vary substantially between providers. Free collections are available for certain materials, in certain locations and/or in sufficient quantities. Price data suggests that, on average, private operators tend to offer more competitive prices for refuse collections while local authorities tend to be more competitive on recycling. Businesses should be encouraged to consider the full costs of the agreement, including container rental and any administration charges as well as contractual terms (e.g. cancellation clauses). Businesses should consider requesting discounts on their residual waste collections when they begin to segregate dense materials, particularly food but also glass for some business types (e.g. pubs). These materials take up a significantly smaller proportion of the business bin in terms of volume than they do in weight. Removal of these materials has direct financial benefits for the waste contractor through reduced landfill costs and cross-contamination of recoverable material. Customers could reasonably expect to see some of these benefits passed on to them via reduced charges for residual waste collections. It should also be noted that many SMEs will, knowingly or unknowingly, use household waste services (kerbside, HWRC, bring and other) to dispose of their waste and recycling, or in more extreme cases by illegal dumping and fly tipping. A survey by GHK/Defra in 2010 found that 41% of SMEs with four or fewer employees and 10% of SMEs with employees used a household route for some of their waste or recycling 12. There is no reason to assume that some businesses will not continue to look to use household waste routes in Effective enforcement of any measures such as landfill restrictions and requirements to segregate recyclables (either segregated or mixed) is likely to be required to ensure service providers will attract customers if they invest in upgrading their collection systems to create greater flexibility in waste streams, container and collection frequencies. 11 For example, the EcoCassette technology Shanks (now Biffa) is installing at Glasgow Airport. Waste producers may need to consider longer term contracts (e.g. 5 years +) to make such capital investments viable for waste management companies. 12 GHK/Defra (2010) Recycling activities in SMEs 25

26 Appendix 1 Calculator and price / business data updates WRAP Cymru s business waste collection performance and cost calculator model was used as the platform for the analysis. In order for this to be viable, certain modifications to the tool, which was originally developed for hospitality and offices sector business waste producers, were made as follows: Extended range of sectors in the calculator to include retail, manufacturing, health and education; and, Extended range of recycling streams to include: metals, mixed plastic and metals and wood. Updating the calculator for the purpose of assessing the proposed Wales Environment Bill measures required the inclusion of new background data and assumptions. The types of data and assumptions updated or adapted for the assessment of the Environment Bill measures include: Waste collections price data for Wales; Waste composition data for new sectors; Fill level and recognition rate assumptions for new waste streams; and, Bulk density and carbon factor for wood. The changes made were sufficient to allow the assessment to progress, albeit a number of areas for further refinement were identified which would improve the tool s future application to the target sectors and for this type of analysis. These are summarised below: Incorporate differences in local authority and private sector prices where they are identified; Allow for selection of different service provider for different services (local authority, private sector or niche, for example, specialist food waste collector); Incorporation of contamination; and, General improvement in what data is displayed to users and how it is presented. Price data updates The prices used in the calculator were updated to be Wales-specific. The prices best reflect those paid by Welsh businesses for waste collection services, based on the best available data. The list below summarises the key changes made: Sack prices have increased substantially. The original prices were based on a limited number of data and may be revisited in light of price data collected from Wales; Estimated prices for 140l and 180l bins have been included; Estimated prices for metals, mixed plastics and metals and wood waste have been included; In general, recycling prices for bins ( litres) were found to be slightly higher in Wales; Refuse prices were broadly similar for smaller container sizes (360 litres and less) however prices for larger containers ( litres) have been increased reflecting high prices charged by some local authorities; 26

27 Skip, REL, FEL and RORO prices have been changed to reflect a general increase in these prices in Wales in line with the majority prices collected for project. This may reflect that, in general, waste collection prices may be more expensive than in England however the original prices were based on a limited number of data and may be revisited in light of prices collected from Wales; and, A number of prices previously included in the calculator have been removed, namely REL compactor and RORO prices for recyclables. It is not clear if these services are offered in Wales and, if they are, how prevalent they may be. However, at present, as these types of containers are not part of the container options for recycling streams these prices are not required. 27

28 Appendix 2 Price data Analysis The price data collated for this project has been analysed to identify how business waste collection prices may vary by location and by service provider type (private and local authority). Previous analyses 13 of commercial waste prices showed that some private operators do vary their refuse prices 14 according to location. Factors likely to affect the prices charged at different locations include rurality, business/customer density, local competition and proximity to waste collection and disposal infrastructure. However, while national service providers may vary their prices by location, information from local providers, including local authorities, shows they tend not to vary their prices, and as such pricing by location cannot be considered standard industry practice. Analysis of the price data collected for this project has not shown any statistically significant differences between prices for different locations, hence none have been applied in the modelling. On initial inspection of local authority and private operator prices there appears to be a significant difference between local authority and private refuse collection prices (Figure A.1). Private and local authority operators are similarly priced for standard 240 and 360 litre bins but private operators appear to be less expensive than local authority collections for larger refuse containers such as 660 and 1,100 litre bins. While this appears clear it should be noted that the local authority prices cover a substantial range ( for 1,100 litre containers) with some local authority prices comparable to private operators ( for 1,100 litre containers). In addition it appears that, in general, local authority recycling prices may tend to be lower than private operator recycling prices (Figure A,2). While this looks to be true for mixed glass and food waste, it is less conclusive for other recycling streams. Figure A.1 Mixed commercial (refuse) prices simple averages per lift Container Litre Mixed commercial Mixed commercial Council Private Sack l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin FWC , Business Waste Performance and Cost Calculator, 2013 plus commercial waste projects with Down DC, Castlereagh BC and Dorset CC [all on behalf of WRAP Cymru] involved examining online quotation tools from Biffa and FCC and well as regional/local providers for geographical price differentials. 14 Prices for recycling were found not to vary by location to the same extent as refuse, if at all. 28

29 Figure A.2 Recycling prices simple averages per lift Container Litre Co-mingled with glass Co-mingled with glass Paper Paper Card Card Council Private Council Private Council Private Sack l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin Container Litre Paper and card Paper and card Mixed glass Mixed glass Food waste Food waste Council Private Council Private Council Private 240l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin l wheeled bin Although there appear to be differences in the prices charged by local authority and private operators the quantity and quality of the data is not sufficient to conclude these differences are real or to quantify them. The results presented here are indicative and can be affected by a number of factors. In particular, as not all service providers offer the same range of services, some values are necessarily composed from a limited number of data points, and as such could be skewed to represent the pricing strategies of individual operators rather than the market in general. While there may be a difference in prices charged by local authority and private providers, the current evidence is not strong enough to produce separate price matrices for local authority and private operators. Therefore the indicative Welsh-specific price list used in the scenario assessment represents a blended price which considers both local authority and private sector pricing (while maintaining internal consistency in prices by container type and size). Another observation from the price survey is the use of multi-bin discounts by some local authority and private operators, as well as the existence of discounts for customers who already receive services from the same operator. While these practices are known to exist, their prevalence and impact on prices is not well quantified and will change over time, hence they are not included in the prices adopted. Finally, the refuse price lists were adjusted to reflect the increase in landfill tax in 2014/15. The extent to which increases in tax are reflected in the prices per lift depends on a number of factors, including the management route for the collected refuse (e.g. dirty MRF and Energy from Waste outlets are only partially impacted by Landfill Tax increases) and the balance of costs between logistics and disposal, making up the total lift price. It is apparent from historical price data that private operators have managed to minimise the impact of landfill tax increases on the prices they charge. For example, the price of a lift of a 1,100 litre container from a private operator has remained fairly consistent (at between for a number of years) despite increases in landfill tax. In contrast, many local authority prices have increased year on year in line with the escalator. Reasons for the differences between local authority and private operator prices include: Material collected as refuse by local authority operators is more likely to be 100% disposed of in landfill, and hence fully subject to landfill tax; Material collected as refuse by private operators may be partially recovered via dirty MRFs or incinerated in Energy from Waste facilities. Therefore a lower proportion of the material collected will be subject to landfill tax; Local authority operators are incentivised to minimise the quantity of commercial refuse they collect by statutory recycling targets, and hence may set prices levels to discourage take up of their refuse services; 29

30 In contrast, for private operators competitive pressures provide incentive to keep refuse prices as low as possible. The success of private operators diverting material from landfill means that the effective landfill tax rate per tonne of material collected by service providers is less than 80 per tonne (as not all material collected will be subject to landfill tax). For the reasons discussed, the effective landfill tax rate per tonne of material collected by service providers has been set at 48 per tonne (60% of actual tax rate) as this produces a general increase in prices considered to be realistic. No further increases in landfill tax have been applied to future years. 30

31 Appendix 3 Typical Businesses Data Analysis Data collation and cleansing Data describing the waste and recycling services used by businesses in Wales came in a number of formats from local authorities and was either directly input into the database or transformed into the same format used in the database before incorporation. Prior to this each dataset was cleansed to remove: Transposition errors; Records in non-target sectors; and Repeat entries. Recycling only customers have been removed from the datasets so that all customer records include a refuse collection. We recognise that it is possible that our dataset will include some records for customers that have recycling services but with a different service provider. This is a limitation of the database however as the sample data will not be used to aggregate any of the results the main consideration is how it may influence our characterisation of typical businesses. Typical businesses have been defined by the level of containment they use for their waste and the types of services they use. The presence of businesses with recycling but described as refuse only customers in the database will influence the average level of containment for different business types however it will not skew the values adopted as the typical business are grouped by the size of the containment they use i.e. because the businesses are grouped within a range the average will always be within that range. Another effect is that these businesses with recycling but described as refuse only customers in the database will not be included in the estimates of the type and size of services used by typical businesses with recycling. Again, although not ideal, the main disadvantage is that there are simply less businesses to use to calculate the type and average size of services used by typical businesses with recycling. It could also be argued removing recycling only records ignores the possibility of a business producing no refuse and only recycling. While we acknowledge this possibility we believe it is likely to be rare and unlikely to explain all the recycling only records removed from the datasets. Perhaps the biggest limitation of the data analysis is that it does not control for the services which are on offer which will be a key driver of the services businesses use. In practice, determining where different types of services are available is a complex, potentially impossible, task which was beyond the scope of this project. Therefore we have taken a pragmatic approach and assumed that information on the services received by more than 100 businesses in each sector is sufficient to define the types of services they are likely to use. Information on the waste services currently received by the manufacturing sector was limited to just 59 businesses. Therefore an alternative approach to defining the types of services used by manufacturing businesses was adopted and is described in Appendix 4. At the end of this process a database containing 3,663 records on the waste services received by businesses had been created. Table A.3 presents the number of records in the database by 31

32 sector, with hospitality businesses sub-divided into food service and hotels/holiday accommodation. Table A.3 Records on the waste services received by businesses (by sector) Sector No. records Education 263 Food service 1,083 Health 102 Hotel and holiday accommodation 760 Manufacturing 59 Office 658 Retail 640 Total 3,663 Data analysis Typical businesses have been defined by the current types of services and level of containment that they use for their waste, because the volume of waste produced by a business is a key driver of their waste collection costs and is generally reflective of the scale of activities undertaken. To define the types of services and level of containment for businesses that use a range of waste services the businesses in the dataset were grouped by inter-quartile ranges in terms of containment provision (litres/week). The 1 st group contained all businesses from the minimum level of containment to the 1 st quartile in each sector. The 2 nd group contained all businesses from the 1 st quartile level of containment to the 2 nd quartile (median). The 3 rd group contained all businesses from the 2 nd quartile (median) level of containment to the 3 rd quartile. The 4 th group contained all businesses from the 3 rd quartile level of containment to the 4 th quartile (max). Finally, the business with the highest level of containment in each sector was used to represent the largest typical business (group 5 - Max). Once businesses had been grouped together the average total level of containment used by the businesses in each group was calculated. Example summary results from the analysis are presented below for the food service sector in Table A.4. The first row shows the average level of containment for refuse only customers in each group. The rows below show the average levels of containment for customers with co-mingled or segregated services in the same group. 32

33 Table A.4 Average containment (litres/wk) provision for typical businesses in the food services sector food service Service types 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Max Refuse only Refuse w/ co-mingled Cominged Food n/a n/a Refuse w/ segregated Paper Card Plastic Metals Glass Food The average levels of containment for different waste streams and materials were then assigned to the service with the best fit in terms of container type and collection frequency. Note, collection container and frequency options available vary according to the type of waste, for example, the minimum collection frequency for food waste is weekly. Table A.5 shows the services assigned to typical businesses in group 2 of the food services sector. Table A.5 Waste and recycling services used by typical businesses in group 2 of the food services sector Refuse only Refuse Co-mingled Paper Card Plastic Metals Glass Food Avg. Containment (litres/wk) Container size (litres) No. containers Collection frequency wk Co-mingled Refuse Co-mingled Paper Card Plastic Metals Glass Food Avg. Containment (litres/wk) Container size (litres) No. containers Collection frequency fn wk Segregated Refuse Co-mingled Paper & Card Plastic & Metals Glass Food Avg. Containment (litres/wk) Container size (litres) n/a No. containers 1-1 n/a 1 1 Collection frequency fn - 4wk n/a fn wk Note: wk = weekly, fn = fortnightly and 4wk = four weekly. 33

34 Appendix 4 Manufacturing Sector It was evident early in the study that the manufacturing sector introduces some specific challenges with respect to defining a typical business and the associated (baseline) waste management arrangements. Manufacturing is a very diverse sector, covering 24 divisions (10 33) in the UK Standard Industry Classification, incorporating the manufacture of all goods: from vehicles to chemicals. Each manufacturing division produces different products using different raw materials, and hence generate different types of waste, some of which may require specialist treatment or disposal. The study generated good levels of service information from local authority commercial waste service providers, however as a general rule the customer base that local authorities service tends to be focused on sectors operating on the high street, public administration and in education. Whilst SME manufacturers may be serviced by local authorities, e.g. our data sets included activities such as candle making, larger or specialist manufacturers are likely to require waste services provided by the private sector, where data is more limited. Therefore, in contrast to the other sectors, typical manufacturing businesses have been defined according to the quantity of waste they are estimated to produce from which the waste and recycling services they receive has been inferred. The estimated waste arisings (tpa) of typical manufacturing businesses have been derived from the Survey of Industrial and Commercial Waste Arisings in Wales Data from the 2012 Survey of Industrial and Commercial Waste Arisings in Wales was examined, however it appears the arising results for businesses with less than 5 employees have not been adjusted as they were for the 2007 report. This leads to seemingly inconsistent estimates for 2012 whereby businesses with less than 1 2 employees are estimated to generate more absolute waste than businesses with 3 4 and 5 9 employees. Given that the groups used in this study are defined by increasing levels of waste, the 2012 arising estimates are incompatible with the approach used in this assessment. The waste and recycling services typical manufacturing businesses have been assumed to receive were informed by engagement with waste management contractors, the average waste composition adopted for the manufacturing sector, and lessons learnt analysing the services received by businesses from other sectors. Estimated waste arisings Table A.6 presents the logic behind the selection of the waste arisings (tpa) used in the assessment for typical manufacturing businesses. Note, approximately 90% of manufacturing businesses in Wales employ less than 50 people. Manufacturing businesses which generate more than 200 tpa of waste and recycling have not been included in the assessment. In general the more waste which is generated by a business the greater the potential to benefit from the requirements of the Environment Bill when they come into force. This observation will also be applicable to the manufacturing sector, however, where a manufacturer generates large volumes of specific waste types with specialist disposal routes, the potential for increased savings will diminish (because there is little scope to make savings on the volumes of specialist or hazardous waste materials they may generate). 34

35 Table A.6 Defining estimated waste arisings (tpa) for typical businesses in the manufacturing sector Survey of I&Cl Waste Arisings in Wales 2007: Business employment size bands Survey of I&C Waste Arisings in Wales 2007: Manufacturing sector average annual arisings (tpa) Typical business groupings used in this study Assumed typical manufacturing business annual arisings (tpa) used in this study Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group Assigning waste services In practice assigning the services that manufacturing businesses of different sizes would use was, for most materials, informed by the types of services received by businesses in other sectors with similar levels of containment provision. The exceptions to this were for metals and wood. The estimated composition of manufacturing waste includes significantly more metal than that from other sectors. Given the values of metal we have examined the volumes assumed to be produced by each group of typical businesses and assumed high (>90%) segregation of the material. Wood is also estimated to compose a more substantial proportion of manufacturing waste than in other sectors. In practice, as we have only allowed for the use of skips for wood waste, only manufacturing businesses in groups 4 and 5 are estimated to generate sufficient quantities of wood waste to require a wood waste service. 35

36 Appendix 5 Example Model Inputs and Outputs By way of an example of typical business data used in the assessment, table B.1 presents details of the services used by typical education businesses in group 3, which are estimated to generate approximately 12 tonnes of material per annum. Table B.1 Typical businesses in education sector, group 3, Assessment inputs Sector Group Baseline service type Waste type Container size (litres) No. containers Collection frequency Cost 1 ( /wk) Education 3 Refuse only Refuse 1,280 2 Weekly Education 3 Co-mingled Refuse 1,100 1 Weekly Refuse Weekly MDR 1,100 1 Weekly Food waste Weekly Education 3 Segregated Refuse 1,100 1 Weekly Refuse Weekly Paper Sack 1 Weekly Card Weekly Mixed Weekly plastics and metals Mixed glass Four weekly Food waste Weekly Note (1): Cost ( /wk) of service used by typical business is an output of the calculator. 36

37 Table B.2 presents details of the calculator outputs by scenario for typical education businesses in group 3 Table B.2 Typical businesses in education sector, group 3, Scenario outputs Sector Group Scenario Waste type Container size No. containers Collection frequency Cost ( /wk) Education 3 1 Refuse Weekly Paper Weekly Card Weekly Mixed Weekly plastic Mixed glass Four weekly Metals Sack 1 Weekly Food waste Weekly Education 3 2 Refuse Weekly MDR Weekly Food waste Weekly Education 3 3 Refuse Weekly MDR Weekly Mixed glass Four weekly Food waste Weekly Education 3 4 Refuse Weekly Paper & Weekly card Mixed Weekly plastic and metals Mixed glass Four weekly Food waste Weekly 37

38 Appendix 6 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for businesses generating >50kg food waste per week Scenario 1 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 1 No , % Education 1 Co-mingled 1 No , % Education 1 Segregated 1 No , % Education 2 Refuse 1 No 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 1 No 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 1 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 1 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 1 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 1 No % Food 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Food 1 Segregated 1 No % Food 2 Refuse 1 No , % Food 2 Co-mingled 1 No , % Food 2 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 1 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 1 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 1 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Health 1 Segregated 1 No % Health 2 Refuse 1 No , % Health 2 Co-mingled 1 No 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 1 No , % Health 3 Refuse 1 No 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 1 No 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 1 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated 1 Yes 11, , , % 38

39 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 1 No % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 1 No % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 1 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 1 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 1 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 1 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 1 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 1 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 1 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 1 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Office 1 Segregated 1 No % Office 2 Refuse 1 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 1 No % Office 2 Segregated 1 No % Office 3 Refuse 1 No , % Office 3 Co-mingled 1 No , % Office 3 Segregated 1 No , % Office 4 Refuse 1 No 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 1 No 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 1 No 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 1 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 1 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 1 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Retail 1 Segregated 1 No % Retail 2 Refuse 1 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 1 No % Retail 2 Segregated 1 No % Retail 3 Refuse 1 No , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 1 No , % Retail 3 Segregated 1 No , % Retail 4 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 1 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 1 Yes 12, , , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 1 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 1 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 1 No 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 1 No 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 1 No 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 1 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 1 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 1 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 1 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 1 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 1 Yes 36, , , % 39

40 Scenario 2 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 2 No % Education 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Education 1 Segregated 2 No % Education 2 Refuse 2 No 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 2 No 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 2 No 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 2 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 2 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 2 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 2 No % Food 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Food 1 Segregated 2 No % Food 2 Refuse 2 No % Food 2 Co-mingled 2 No % Food 2 Segregated 2 No 1, % Food 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 2 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 2 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 2 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Health 1 Segregated 2 No % Health 2 Refuse 2 No , % Health 2 Co-mingled 2 No 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 2 No , % Health 3 Refuse 2 No 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 2 No 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 2 No 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 2 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 2 Yes 11, , % 40

41 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 2 No % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 2 No % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 2 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 2 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 2 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 2 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 2 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 2 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 2 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 2 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 2 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 2 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 1 Segregated 2 No % Office 2 Refuse 2 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 2 Segregated 2 No % Office 3 Refuse 2 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 3 Segregated 2 No % Office 4 Refuse 2 No 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 2 No 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 2 No 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 2 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 2 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 2 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Retail 1 Segregated 2 No % Retail 2 Refuse 2 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 2 No % Retail 2 Segregated 2 No % Retail 3 Refuse 2 No % Retail 3 Co-mingled 2 No % Retail 3 Segregated 2 No % Retail 4 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 2 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 2 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 2 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 2 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 2 No 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 2 No 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 2 No 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 2 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 2 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 2 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 2 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 2 Yes 36, , , % 41

42 Scenario 3 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 3 No % Education 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Education 1 Segregated 3 No % Education 2 Refuse 3 No 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 3 No 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 3 No 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 3 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 3 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 3 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 3 No % Food 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Food 1 Segregated 3 No % Food 2 Refuse 3 No % Food 2 Co-mingled 3 No % Food 2 Segregated 3 No 1, % Food 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 3 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 3 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 3 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Health 1 Segregated 3 No % Health 2 Refuse 3 No , % Health 2 Co-mingled 3 No 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 3 No , % Health 3 Refuse 3 No 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 3 No 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 3 No 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 3 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 3 Yes 11, , % 42

43 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 3 No % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 3 No % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 3 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 3 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 3 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 3 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 3 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 3 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 3 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 3 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 3 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 3 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 1 Segregated 3 No % Office 2 Refuse 3 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 2 Segregated 3 No % Office 3 Refuse 3 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 3 Segregated 3 No % Office 4 Refuse 3 No 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 3 No 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 3 No 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 3 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 3 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 3 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Retail 1 Segregated 3 No % Retail 2 Refuse 3 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 3 No % Retail 2 Segregated 3 No % Retail 3 Refuse 3 No % Retail 3 Co-mingled 3 No % Retail 3 Segregated 3 No % Retail 4 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 3 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 3 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 3 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 3 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 3 No 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 3 No 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 3 No 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 3 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 3 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 3 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 3 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 3 Yes 36, , , % 43

44 Scenario 4 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 4 No % Education 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Education 1 Segregated 4 No % Education 2 Refuse 4 No 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 4 No 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 4 No 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 4 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 4 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 4 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 4 No % Food 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Food 1 Segregated 4 No % Food 2 Refuse 4 No % Food 2 Co-mingled 4 No % Food 2 Segregated 4 No 1, % Food 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 4 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 4 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 4 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Health 1 Segregated 4 No % Health 2 Refuse 4 No , % Health 2 Co-mingled 4 No 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 4 No , % Health 3 Refuse 4 No 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 4 No 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 4 No 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 4 Yes 13, , % Health 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated , , % 44

45 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 4 No % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 4 No % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 4 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 4 No , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 4 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 4 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 4 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 4 No 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 4 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 4 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 4 Yes 14, , , % Office 1 Refuse 4 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 1 Segregated 4 No % Office 2 Refuse 4 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 2 Segregated 4 No % Office 3 Refuse 4 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 3 Segregated 4 No % Office 4 Refuse 4 No 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 4 No 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 4 No 2, , , % Office 5 Refuse 4 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 4 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 4 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Retail 1 Segregated 4 No % Retail 2 Refuse 4 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 4 No % Retail 2 Segregated 4 No % Retail 3 Refuse 4 No % Retail 3 Co-mingled 4 No % Retail 3 Segregated 4 No % Retail 4 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 4 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 4 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 4 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 4 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 4 No 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 4 No 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 4 No 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 4 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 4 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 4 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 4 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 4 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 32, , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 4 Yes 36, , , % 45

46 Appendix 7 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for businesses generating more than 5kg of food waste per week Scenario 1 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 1 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 1 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 1 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 1 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 1 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 1 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 1 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 1 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 1 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 1 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Health 1 Segregated 1 No % Health 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 1 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 1 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated 1 Yes 11, , , % 46

47 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 1 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 1 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 1 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 1 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Office 1 Segregated 1 No % Office 2 Refuse 1 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 1 No % Office 2 Segregated 1 No % Office 3 Refuse 1 No , % Office 3 Co-mingled 1 No , % Office 3 Segregated 1 No , % Office 4 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 1 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 1 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 1 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Retail 1 Segregated 1 No % Retail 2 Refuse 1 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 1 No % Retail 2 Segregated 1 No % Retail 3 Refuse 1 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 1 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 1 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 1 Yes 12, , , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 1 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 1 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 1 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 1 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 1 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 1 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 1 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 1 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 1 Yes 36, , , % 47

48 Scenario 2 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 2 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 2 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 2 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 2 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 2 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 2 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 2 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 2 Yes % Food 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Food 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, % Food 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 2 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 2 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 2 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Health 1 Segregated 2 No % Health 2 Refuse 2 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 2 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 2 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 2 Yes 11, , % 48

49 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 2 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 2 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 2 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 2 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 1 Segregated 2 No % Office 2 Refuse 2 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 2 Segregated 2 No % Office 3 Refuse 2 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 2 No % Office 3 Segregated 2 No % Office 4 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 2 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 2 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 2 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Retail 1 Segregated 2 No % Retail 2 Refuse 2 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 2 No % Retail 2 Segregated 2 No % Retail 3 Refuse 2 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 2 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 2 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 2 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 2 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 2 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 2 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 2 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 2 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 2 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 2 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 2 Yes 36, , , % 49

50 Scenario 3 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 3 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 3 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 3 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 3 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 3 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 3 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 3 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 3 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 3 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 3 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Health 1 Segregated 3 No % Health 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 3 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 3 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 3 Yes 11, , % 50

51 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 3 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 3 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 3 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 3 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 1 Segregated 3 No % Office 2 Refuse 3 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 2 Segregated 3 No % Office 3 Refuse 3 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 3 No % Office 3 Segregated 3 No % Office 4 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 3 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 3 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 3 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Retail 1 Segregated 3 No % Retail 2 Refuse 3 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 3 No % Retail 2 Segregated 3 No % Retail 3 Refuse 3 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 3 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 3 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 3 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 3 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 3 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 3 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 3 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 3 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 3 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 3 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 3 Yes 36, , , % 51

52 Scenario 4 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 4 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 4 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 4 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 4 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 4 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 4 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 4 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 4 No % Health 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Health 1 Segregated 4 No % Health 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 4 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 4 Yes 13, , % Health 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated 4 Yes 11, , % 52

53 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 4 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 4 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 4 Yes 14, , , % Office 1 Refuse 4 No % Office 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 1 Segregated 4 No % Office 2 Refuse 4 No % Office 2 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 2 Segregated 4 No % Office 3 Refuse 4 No % Office 3 Co-mingled 4 No % Office 3 Segregated 4 No % Office 4 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 4 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 4 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 4 No % Retail 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Retail 1 Segregated 4 No % Retail 2 Refuse 4 No % Retail 2 Co-mingled 4 No % Retail 2 Segregated 4 No % Retail 3 Refuse 4 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 4 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 4 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 4 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 4 No % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 4 No % Manufacture 1 Segregated 4 No % Manufacture 2 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 4 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 4 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 4 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 4 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 4 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 32, , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 4 Yes 36, , , % 53

54 Appendix 8 Full results by scenario: separate food waste collections for all businesses Scenario 1 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 1 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 1 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 1 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 1 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 1 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 1 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 1 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 1 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 1 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 1 Yes % Health 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Health 1 Segregated 1 Yes % Health 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 1 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 1 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 1 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated 1 Yes 11, , , % 54

55 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 1 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 1 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 1 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 1 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 1 Yes % Office 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Office 1 Segregated 1 Yes % Office 2 Refuse 1 Yes , % Office 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Office 2 Segregated 1 Yes , % Office 3 Refuse 1 Yes , % Office 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Office 3 Segregated 1 Yes , % Office 4 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 1 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 1 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 1 Yes % Retail 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Retail 1 Segregated 1 Yes % Retail 2 Refuse 1 Yes % Retail 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes % Retail 2 Segregated 1 Yes % Retail 3 Refuse 1 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 1 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 1 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 1 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 1 Yes 12, , , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 1 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 1 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Segregated 1 Yes , % Manufacture 2 Refuse 1 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 1 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 1 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 1 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 1 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 1 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 1 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 1 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 1 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 1 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 1 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 1 Yes 36, , , % 55

56 Scenario 2 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 2 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 2 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 2 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 2 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 2 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 2 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 2 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 2 Yes % Food 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Food 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, % Food 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 2 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 2 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 2 Yes % Health 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Health 1 Segregated 2 Yes % Health 2 Refuse 2 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 2 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 2 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 2 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 2 Yes 11, , % 56

57 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 2 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 2 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 2 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 2 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 2 Yes % Office 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Office 1 Segregated 2 Yes % Office 2 Refuse 2 Yes % Office 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Office 2 Segregated 2 Yes % Office 3 Refuse 2 Yes , % Office 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Office 3 Segregated 2 Yes , % Office 4 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 2 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 2 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 2 Yes % Retail 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Retail 1 Segregated 2 Yes % Retail 2 Refuse 2 Yes % Retail 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes % Retail 2 Segregated 2 Yes % Retail 3 Refuse 2 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 2 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 2 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 2 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 2 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 2 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 2 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Segregated 2 Yes , % Manufacture 2 Refuse 2 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 2 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 2 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 2 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 2 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 2 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 2 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 2 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 2 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 2 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 2 Yes 36, , , % 57

58 Scenario 3 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 3 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 3 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 3 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 3 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 3 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 3 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 3 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 3 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 3 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 3 Yes % Health 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Health 1 Segregated 3 Yes % Health 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 3 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 3 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 3 Yes 13, , , % Health 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 10, , % Health 5 Segregated 3 Yes 11, , % 58

59 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 3 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 3 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 3 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 3 Yes 14, , % Office 1 Refuse 3 Yes % Office 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Office 1 Segregated 3 Yes % Office 2 Refuse 3 Yes % Office 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Office 2 Segregated 3 Yes % Office 3 Refuse 3 Yes , % Office 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Office 3 Segregated 3 Yes , % Office 4 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 3 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 3 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 3 Yes % Retail 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Retail 1 Segregated 3 Yes % Retail 2 Refuse 3 Yes % Retail 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes % Retail 2 Segregated 3 Yes % Retail 3 Refuse 3 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 3 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 3 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 3 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 3 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 3 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 3 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Segregated 3 Yes , % Manufacture 2 Refuse 3 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 3 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 3 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 3 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 3 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 3 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 3 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 3 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 3 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 3 Yes 32, , , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 3 Yes 36, , , % 59

60 Scenario 4 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Education 1 Refuse 4 Yes , % Education 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Education 1 Segregated 4 Yes , % Education 2 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Education 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Education 3 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 2, , % Education 3 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Education 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Education 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 4, , % Education 4 Segregated 4 Yes 5, , % Education 5 Refuse 4 Yes 23, , , % Education 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 16, , % Education 5 Segregated 4 Yes 17, , % Food 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Food 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Food 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Food 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Food 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Food 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Food 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Food 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Food 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Food 5 Refuse 4 Yes 59, , , % Food 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 50, , , % Food 5 Segregated 4 Yes 57, , , % Health 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Health 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Health 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Health 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Health 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Health 2 Segregated 4 Yes , % Health 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Health 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Health 4 Refuse 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Health 4 Segregated 4 Yes 3, , % Health 5 Refuse 4 Yes 13, , % Health 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 10, , , % Health 5 Segregated 4 Yes 11, , % 60

61 Sector Group Baseline service type Scenario 2017_Baseline 2017_Post-Bill separate food waste in Annual cost Annual cost Absolute diff % diff Hotel and catering 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Hotel and catering 2 Refuse 4 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Hotel and catering 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Refuse 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 3 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Hotel and catering 4 Refuse 4 Yes 5, , % Hotel and catering 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 3, , % Hotel and catering 4 Segregated 4 Yes 4, , % Hotel and catering 5 Refuse 4 Yes 17, , , % Hotel and catering 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 13, , % Hotel and catering 5 Segregated 4 Yes 14, , , % Office 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Office 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Office 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Office 2 Refuse 4 Yes % Office 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Office 2 Segregated 4 Yes % Office 3 Refuse 4 Yes , % Office 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Office 3 Segregated 4 Yes , % Office 4 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 2, , % Office 4 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Office 5 Refuse 4 Yes 28, , , % Office 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 19, , , % Office 5 Segregated 4 Yes 21, , , % Retail 1 Refuse 4 Yes % Retail 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Retail 1 Segregated 4 Yes % Retail 2 Refuse 4 Yes % Retail 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes % Retail 2 Segregated 4 Yes % Retail 3 Refuse 4 Yes , % Retail 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Retail 3 Segregated 4 Yes , % Retail 4 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Retail 4 Segregated 4 Yes 2, , % Retail 5 Refuse 4 Yes 15, , , % Retail 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 11, , % Retail 5 Segregated 4 Yes 12, , % Manufacture 1 Refuse 4 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Co-mingled 4 Yes , % Manufacture 1 Segregated 4 Yes , % Manufacture 2 Refuse 4 Yes 2, , % Manufacture 2 Co-mingled 4 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 2 Segregated 4 Yes 1, , % Manufacture 3 Refuse 4 Yes 10, , , % Manufacture 3 Co-mingled 4 Yes 7, , , % Manufacture 3 Segregated 4 Yes 7, , % Manufacture 4 Refuse 4 Yes 25, , , % Manufacture 4 Co-mingled 4 Yes 17, , % Manufacture 4 Segregated 4 Yes 18, , % Manufacture 5 Refuse 4 Yes 51, , , % Manufacture 5 Co-mingled 4 Yes 32, , % Manufacture 5 Segregated 4 Yes 36, , , % 61

62 62

63 Case study 5.0 Appendix 8 - case study St Gwladys School St Gwladys School Introduction St Gwladys is a primary school in Bargoed in Caerphilly County, South Wales with approximately 330 pupils. It has increased recycling as part of their engagement with the wider Eco-Schools Initiative in Caerphilly. What they did St Gwladys began their recycling initiative as part of their wider eco-schools campaign. The school takes a whole school approach to recycling as part of its Eco Schools work and has implemented a number of reduce, reuse, recycle campaigns over the past 10 years. The school has a recycling collection in place for paper, card, and plastic bottles and cans in common areas and inside the classrooms. There is a cost to school for the recycling scheme, but this is offset by the reduction in costs for waste going to landfill. In addition they have initiatives in place to prevent and minimise waste within the school. The Ecoschools committee have looked at the amount of waste disposed of and monitored the amount recycled to identify areas for reduction. For example; St Gwladys is one of 59 schools in Caerphilly that signed up to take part in the Battery Recycling Scheme and have had their batteries collected and weighed by Caerphilly County Borough Council. In 2012, the scheme recycled 1,255kg of batteries across 45 participating schools. To increase recycling levels the Eco-School Committee promote recycling as part of the Eco-Schools Action Plan and use posters designed by pupils to promote the reduce, reuse, recycle messages. The Results In 2012, St Gwladys School became the first school in the Caerphilly County Borough to achieve the coveted Eco Schools Platinum Award. In achieving the platinum award they have tackled and shown improvement in waste recycling and minimisation and litter, which has been achieved at no additional cost to the school. In addition, they have achieved a Healthy School Award and noted environmental benefits to the community, with less litter in the local area as parents and pupils are more aware of the issues around litter, including the hazards to both wildlife and people.

64 Case study St Gwladys School Further Information For further information please see Link Business sector: Education Benefits to Business: Increased recycling, social benefits, environmental awareness Level of Investment: Time for implementation by pupils and teachers While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

65 Case study 6.0 Appendix 9 - case study Powys Teaching Health Board Powys Teaching Health Board Introduction Powys teaching Health Board manages a network of dispersed and rural hospitals across Powys. The majority of these hospitals are small community hospitals and minor injury units. They work with a range of other organisations, including Powys County Council, Community Health Councils and voluntary sector organisations to assist with recycling services and achieving environmental objectives. What they did Having worked closely together in the past, Powys Teaching Health Board has an existing working relationship with Powys Council. The Health Board is working closely with Powys Council to install recycling and food collections facilities across their hospitals. Powys Teaching Health Board is installing a new food waste collection programme across their estate, starting with the largest hospital - Bronllys. Food waste will be collected from the wards using the existing trolley system Lets waste no more time putting up cost barriers to increasing recycling rates, it can be cheaper than going to landfill and we have been able to prove that. Duncan Crawley Facilities Manager and in food waste bins set up in kitchens. Powys Council will collect food waste weekly, meaning they no longer need to make use of macerators at sites. By installing food waste collections the Health Board believes they have not only saved money but have access to better recycling performance data. The estimated average running cost per macerator per week is (includes water, electricity, maintenance, 10 year replacement). The alternative is a weekly food waste collection which overall is cheaper. In addition, the Health Board has developed its own food waste calculator which assists in calculating and preventing food waste at all stages, from preparation to plate waste. At present the hospitals collect recyclables (including plastics, foil trays, cans, cardboard and bottles) in receptacles held in key areas such as kitchens and staff rooms. Confidential paper, metals, wood, clinical wastes and cooking oil are all collected on an ad-hoc basis by individual private contractors. The Health Board is investigating the potential of installing recycling bins onsite to further reduce costs, and increase the onsite recycling rates by capturing more materials.

66 Case study Powys Teaching Health Board The results By introducing comprehensive recycling the Trust has been able to make cost savings while significantly increasing the amount recycled. With the future addition of onsite dry recycling bins and reduced general waste collections (bins numbers and collection frequency), Powys Teaching Health Board estimates that the savings will be approximately 18,000 per annum. Business sector: Health Benefits to Business: Achieving environmental objectives Level of Investment: Time to manage service set-up changes, recycling centre permits Further information For further information please see Link While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

67 Case study 7.0 Appendix 10 - case study Royal Gwent Hospital Royal Gwent Hospital Introduction The Royal Gwent is a hospital in Newport, South Wales. It is managed by the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board that provides NHS Health Services across five local authority areas in South East Wales, which include Caerphilly, Torfaen, Newport, Monmouthshire and Blaenau Gwent. The Aneurin Bevan Health Board estate is one of the largest in Wales, and includes two major acute hospitals the Royal Gwent and Nevill Hall in Abergavenny. The Aneurin Bevan Health Board is one of the first in Wales to fully introduce a ward level integrated recycling scheme. What they did The Health Board is certified to the ISO environmental management standard across its whole estate and therefore, as part of its overall management and improvement programme, the Board decided that waste reduction and recycling should become key objectives with clear targets to be met. As part of this, The Royal Gwent hospital introduced a comprehensive recycling scheme with the help of their in- The introduction of recycling across the hospital has been well received by staff, patients and visitors and has helped us divert considerable amounts of waste from landfill. We are now looking at other waste streams that can be tackled to ensure the Health Board keeps building on the successes achieved to date. Peter White Waste & Environmental Manager Aneurin Bevan University Health Board house teams. Mixed recyclables (metal cans and plastics), cardboard and paper are collected across the hospital using recycling bins fitted with clear bag liners. These have been introduced in all wards and departments throughout the hospital. Recycled cardboard is baled onsite into 500kg bales and provides a regular income of approximately 400 a month for the hospital. General waste is collected in a compactor, which operates alongside a number of waste prevention initiatives that aim to reduce overall volumes of general waste arising. To increase staff, patient and visitor engagement with the recycling programme, an integrated awareness campaign was launched with help from the Infection Prevention and Control Team within the Health Board. The recycling programme has generally been enthusiastically received by staff, and has helped to raise the profile of sustainability and environmental awareness across the Board.

68 Case study Royal Gwent Hospital The Results The Royal Gwent has achieved a significant increase in recycling from just 2% in 2008 to 80% in 2013 by implementing a comprehensive recycling scheme. The Health Board is continuing to investigate other ways of increasing recycling and waste prevention onsite. Further Information For further information please see Link Business sector: Health Benefits to Business: Increased recycling, Level of Investment: Time for implementation

69 Case study Royal Gwent Hospital Case study 8.0 Appendix 11 - case study Fairyhill Hotel and Restaurant Fairyhill Hotel and Restaurant Introduction Fairyhill is a privately owned, country house hotel and restaurant located in the Gower, South Wales. The hotel has eight bedrooms and a renowned fine dining restaurant. It serves cooked breakfasts, lunches and evening meals, as well as cakes and refreshments throughout the day. Following a waste review carried out alongside WRAP Cymru, Fairyhill has implemented a number of measures to increase recycling. What they did The waste review demonstrated where and how much waste was being generated. It indicated that the recycling rate could be increased from 28% to 72% by segregating and recycling food waste, and that a further increase in recycling to over 80% could be achieved by also recycling cardboard. The hotel was already recycling glass, metal cans and plastics. Following the review, the hotel implemented a number of additional measures. Until we reviewed what we produced, we were unaware of the high proportion of food and cardboard waste that the business is generating. Once presented with the information it made sense to reduce, segregate and recycle these waste streams. Paul Davies Owner This included putting in place a food waste segregation and collection scheme which would remove approximately 7 tonnes of food waste a month from the general waste. A cardboard collection is also being planned to further reduce waste going into general waste. Fairyhill also is investigating the potential for replacing cardboard packaging with more returnable crates or re-use of existing packaging. The next step is the segregation and collection of paper; recycling of paper would increase the recycling rate by 8% should a service become available in the locality. The Results Fairyhill is now recycling over 72% of its waste and has made cost savings of at least 853 per annum, it is now seeking to identify more ways to reduce waste to landfill and make cost savings. Further Information For further information please see Link Business sector: Hospitality Benefits to Business: Good Publicity, cost savings Level of Investment: Time to source recycling outlets

70 Case study Fairyhill Hotel and Restaurant 70 While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

71 Case study 9.0 Appendix 12 - case study The Drover s Rest Restaurant The Drover s Rest Riverside Restaurant and Tea rooms Introduction The Drover s Rest is a restaurant, tea rooms and B&B located in LLanwrtyd Wells in Mid Wales. They have achieved 100% recycling as part of their wider Environmental Policy. As a result they have been awarded a Green Tourism Business Scheme Gold Award. The business employs ten people providing a cooking school, accommodation and meals to guests. The Drover s Rest is a green business and owner Peter James is a nationally recognised green champion. What they did The Drover s Rest introduced a comprehensive environmental policy, one aspect of which was recycling. The business set out to actively source outlets for their recycling. They put in place collections for plastics, metal cans, and paper (including napkins, doilies, computer paper, old magazines, newspapers, envelopes, paper table covers and related packaging). In addition, the business has a policy of Introducing the recycling scheme within our business the Drovers Rest Restaurant and J & R Cooking School has enabled us to completely eliminate costly non - recyclable waste as we recycle 100% of our waste playing a major part in fulfilling our Environmental Policy. Peter James, Owner to this. Used cooking oil is returned to the supplier and light bulbs are collected by a WEEE recycling specialist. Ink cartridges and batteries are collected by the local school to raise funds. Glass is collected by a company who use it to produce garden ornaments. Biodegradable food waste is separated, with vegetable waste being collected in a special sealed container for animal feed. All other cooked food is collected by Powys County Council. As a result the business has no need for a general waste collection. Changes to external collections have been supported by displaying the environmental policy to guests, and discrete bins for dry recycling have been placed in every bedroom. Staff training is on-going and all staff are made aware of the importance of sustainability within the business, and are given opportunities to improve company objectives. returning cardboard packaging from deliveries to their suppliers - all have agreed

72 Case study The Drover s Rest The Results As a result of their efforts the business has no general waste collections and recycles 100% of its waste, all of which has been achieved at no additional cost. In addition, the business has won a Green Tourism Gold Award and Powys 2013 Business Award for Sustainability for Green Tourism. Peter has been made a Green Ambassador for the Welsh Assembly for SustainWales on the Wales Green List. Further Information For further information please see Link Business sector: Hospitality Benefits to Business: Good Publicity, savings on collection costs, achieving environmental objectives Level of Investment: Time to source recycling outlets While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

73 Case study Dailycer Dailycer is a cereal manufacturing business in Deeside, North Wales that achieved a 30% reduction in food waste over a 12 month period up to December 2013, delivering significant savings. Introduction Dailycer is 32million turnover manufacturing business employing 130 people at its 30,000m 2 plant in North Wales. They are a leading manufacturer of breakfast cereals and cereal bars on behalf of many of the leading European food retailers. Accredited to the ISO standard, Dailycer is in the process of aligning its approach to the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) five-fold environmental ambitions, and is developing targets - including zero food and packaging waste to landfill. What they did Dailycer has a comprehensive recycling programme as part of its environmental management system. As part of this recycling programme it chose to segregate a number of waste streams which were previously disposed of as general waste. It then identified different waste contractors, hiring those who offered the best, cost effective solution for each waste stream. In addition, the site has made considerable efforts to prevent food waste, with a 30% reduction achieved over 12 months. Residual food waste is captured Reducing and recycling our food waste has been a success and led to us making considerable savings. We are looking for opportunities to do more. Laura Peers HSE Manager from the production line and converted into animal feed. The site has a baler to bale plastic films and cardboard, containers to recycle metals and plastic tote bags. In the offices and canteen areas, under-desk bins are being replaced by central collection points for paper, cans and plastic bottles which are also recycled. Easy to use recycling points and clear signage encourage staff to recycle. The Results As a result of their efforts the business has limited general waste collections and recycles 98% of its waste. Almost all food waste was diverted from landfill, through prevention and recycling in The business has achieved a 30 % reduction in food waste over a 12 month period, delivering significant savings. The business recycles over 265 tonnes of card, paper, plastic and metals a year on average. The business is now undertaking additional waste

74 Case study - Dailycer prevention initiatives including lean reviews and mass balance reports in order to identify opportunities to reduce food waste even further. Further Information For further information on Dailycer please see Link Business sector: Manufacturing Benefits to Business: Significant savings, Achieving environmental objectives Level of Investment: Time to manage service changes While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

75 Case study Pennard Stores and Three Cliffs Coffee Shop Introduction Pennard Stores and Three Cliffs Coffee Shop are a combined general store, coffee shop and restaurant that serves the local community as well as the significant numbers of visitors to Three Cliffs Bay in Gower, South Wales. The store is a newsagent and sells a range of convenience foods including cakes and pate produced on the premises. The coffee shop seats 44, with an external seating area catering for a further 50 people. They employ 6 staff and serve around 50 meals a day to customers. What they did Pennard Stores and Three Cliffs Coffee Shop started by undertaking a waste review to see I have always been aware of the potential environmental impacts of our business and worked to reduce them. The waste review has provided the impetus for us to focus on recycling the remaining components of the residual waste. James Francis Owner what waste was produced and where. They discovered that 92% was generated in the coffee shop and only 8% in the retail store. A number of waste reduction and recycling initiatives had already been successfully implemented and the business was already segregating a number of waste streams including food, cardboard, glass and cans for recycling. The remaining general waste stream consisted predominantly of paper (50%), dense plastics (28%) and plastic film (17%). Following the review the business installed a dense plastics waste collection and is actively investigating options for putting in place a segregated paper waste collection. A paper collection service is currently not available but would save 764kg, from general waste. Recycling of dense plastics will increase the recycling rate to 82%, and a paper waste collection would increase the recycling rate by a further 12% to 94%. In addition, the business is also talking to local suppliers about increasing the use of a returnable crate system to reduce the amount of cardboard packaging waste being generated The results As a result of their efforts they currently recycle 75% of packaging and other wastes, and 100% of food waste. The business believes that by further reducing and recycling cardboard and recycling dense plastics, plastic film, glass and metal cans they could reduce their general waste bin to a 770 litre bin, saving 114 per annum. The business is keen to drive forward further recycling and work with other local businesses to collaborate on solutions.

76 Case study Pennard Stores Further Information For Further information please see Link Business sector: Hospitality Benefits to Business: Good Publicity, potential cost savings on general waste collections Level of Investment: Time to source recycling outlets. While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

77 Case study Maureen Cottey Florists Introduction Maureen Cottey is an established florist in the heart of the Mumbles in Swansea, South Wales. As well as selling and delivering flowers for various occasions including weddings, events and funerals they also sell and deliver wine, champagne, chocolates and balloons. What they did Three years ago Maureen Cottey decided to implement a recycling programme in order to save money on their regular general waste collection. They started by reviewing the containers and frequencies of collection to identify areas for cost saving. They then identified a waste contractor who could meet their needs, hiring Swansea City Council who offered the best, cost effective solution. With the assistance of Swansea City Council they began recycling a number of waste streams including cardboard, which is flatpacked and collected free of charge. The store produces a large volume of waste cellophane packaging from preparing bunches of flowers, this was taking up a lot of room in the general waste bin and meant Since we launched the recycling scheme we have not only increase the volume we recycle but also made savings on our general waste collections. Lisa Davies, Owner the business was paying to dispose of fresh-air. They were able to use the council s pre-paid purple sack service for this material. Finally, Swansea City Council also provided a 360 litre food and garden waste receptacle for the collection of waste plant foliage which is collected two times per week. The Results As a result of their efforts the business now has limited general waste collections and recycles the majority of its waste. Since they introduced the programme Maureen Cottey have been able to reduce their general waste collection from two 360 litre bin collections per week to two general waste sack collections per week, this has resulted in cost savings for the business. The shop has received a positive reaction from their

78 Case study Maureen Cottey Florists customers with a number of them taking an interest in the recycling programme. Further Information For further information please see Link Business sector: Retail Benefits to Business: Increased recycling, Good PR Level of Investment: Time for implementation While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at