The waste strategy group is confident that even under worst-case conditions the EC landfill directive targets will be met. They have already demonstrated a commitment to diverting 72% of their waste away from landfill (see Exec. Summ. Table 2). The key target is the amount of BMW they are allowed to landfill. What the waste strategy group achieve is very much dependent upon the recovery rates of the processes implemented and the participation rates. The BPEO schematics (above) are modelled on recovering 50% of the available recyclate. The schematics use a national set of parameters for the composition of household waste. These parameters are reproduced in Figure 3.8 (below)

Source: Department of Environment, 1992-1993 Household Waste Analysis Programme

If we examine the performance of the BPEO against the permitted BMW landfill targets, we can see why the waste strategy group is so confident. Table 3.6 demonstrates that achieving a BMW diversion to satisfy the modelled 'worst-case scenario' is achievable. What is remarkable about this is that no attempt has been made to utilise weight loss from mixed-waste-treatment technologies driving off water vapour and carbon dioxide in the calculations. All the local authorities are looking to introduce some form of additional treatment technology. Dependant on the technology adopted, then between a quarter and half of the weight of waste processed can be diverted as water vapour and CO2, plus they will boost their recycling/composting outputs, plus they can produce an end product suitable for some other use, i.e. not landfilled.

Given that the BPEO seeks additional treatment for approximately half of the waste, then a comfortable margin for error can be counted on. Such an approach also allows the treatment of all the putrescibles plus the 'contaminated' fractions that can't be directly recycled/composted.

Source of waste data: SWMBA appendix 2.

The amount of BMW going to Landfill is shown in Table 3.7. These figures can then be compared to the maximum amount of BMW allowed to landfill under the directive, as set out in Table 3.8.

Source: Data from SWMBA 2001 Appendix 2 (rounded to nearest thousand)
Calculated from SWMBA (2001) data and LA performance table 2.

The bottom line is that the BPEO is based on a worst-case scenario. It confidently predicts the delivery of the diversion targets (see Table 3.7 above) with a comfortable factor of safety.

Source: SWMBA 2001 Appendix 2 (rounded to nearest thousand).

Proof of the effectiveness of the BPEO will lie in what it delivers. While the WSAG is reluctant to impose fixed targets without a national framework to follow, it has acknowledged that monitoring and review is required, giving an indication of progress. This principle of monitoring and continuous improvement is central to good management. To ensure that the BPEO objectives will be achieved, the WSAG will need to periodically review progress. It is expected that WSAG will produce an Annual Report to record and disseminate information on progress made and the AWP itself will be reviewed every 5 years (see Action 19).

Figure 3.9 below shows the levels of treatment required over the period of the plan and gives an indication of the stages to be reached to ensure that the waste diversion objectives of the AWP are met on time. These are consistent with the diagrams and tables shown on previous pages.