Execut e 08 12 04 A Rep K

Prosiect Gwyrdd
Procurement of Waste Treatment Facilities

for Residual Municipal Waste
Outline Business Case

Contents
Prosiect Gwyrdd
Outline Business Case for Waste Treatment Facilities
Contents
Contents...........................................................................................................................................i
Abbreviations and Glossary ............................................................................................................iv
Section 1: Executive Summary........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background ...............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Strategic Waste Management Objectives...................................................................................2
1.4 Procurement Strategy and Reference Technology Example.......................................................4
1.5 Option Appraisal Summary ........................................................................................................6
1.6 Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual Structures...................................................7
1.7 Project Team and Governance ..................................................................................................8
1.8 Sites, Planning and Design ......................................................................................................10
1.9 Costs, Budget and Finance......................................................................................................10
1.10 Payment Mechanism .............................................................................................................11
1.11 Balance Sheet Treatment ......................................................................................................11
1.12 Stakeholder Communications ................................................................................................11
1.13 Timetable ..............................................................................................................................12
Section 2: Background ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................13
2.2 Details of Key Characteristics of Area Profile ...........................................................................14
2.3 Analysis of Waste Arising.........................................................................................................15
2.4 Details of Current Arrangements for Collection and Disposal....................................................16
2.5 Performance of Existing Services.............................................................................................17
2.6 Residual Waste Treatment.......................................................................................................18
2.7 Waste Composition..................................................................................................................20
2.8 Summary.................................................................................................................................22
Section 3: Strategic Waste Management Objectives ...................................................... 24
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................24
3.2 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Waste Partnership..................................................................................25
3.3 Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) ....................................................................28
3.4 South East Wales Regional Waste Plan...................................................................................31
3.5 Summary.................................................................................................................................37
Section 4: Procurement Strategy and Reference Project ............................................... 38
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................38
4.2 Output Specification for the Project ..........................................................................................40
4.3 Long Listing of Technology Options .........................................................................................41
4.4 Appraisal of Short-listed Options to Identify Example Reference Technology ...........................44
4.5 Bankability...............................................................................................................................53
4.6 Carbon Footprint......................................................................................................................54
4.7 The Reference Project .............................................................................................................57
Section 5: Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual Structures .................. 60
5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................60
5.2 Contractual and Funding Options.............................................................................................62
5.3 Funding route ..........................................................................................................................64
5.4 Project Agreement and Other Contractual Documents .............................................................64
i
Contents
5.5 Payment Mechanism ...............................................................................................................65

5.6 Contract Monitoring .................................................................................................................65
5.7 Markets for process outputs.....................................................................................................65
Section 6: Project Team and Governance ....................................................................... 66
6.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................66
6.2 Legal Context ..........................................................................................................................66
6.3 Project Governance .................................................................................................................68
6.4 Project Team Governance .......................................................................................................71
Section 7: Sites and Planning .......................................................................................... 74
7.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................74
7.2 Site Identification .....................................................................................................................75
7.3 Site Availability ........................................................................................................................75
7.4 Sites Strategy ..........................................................................................................................76
7.5 Design Considerations.............................................................................................................76
Section 8: Cost, Budgets and Finance............................................................................. 78
8.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................78
8.2 Procurement Costs..................................................................................................................78
8.3 Other Project Costs .................................................................................................................79
8.4 Potential Land Development Costs ..........................................................................................80
8.5 Cost of the Reference Project ..................................................................................................80
8.6 Qualitative Assessment ...........................................................................................................82
8.7 Quantitative Assessment .........................................................................................................83
8.8 Key Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................84
8.9 Optimism Bias .........................................................................................................................84
8.10 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................85
8.11 Affordability Analysis..............................................................................................................87
8.12 Sensitivities ...........................................................................................................................94
8.13 Key risks................................................................................................................................97
8.14 Project Scenarios Developed .................................................................................................98
8.15 Results of Project Scenarios ..................................................................................................98
Section 9: Stakeholder Communications .......................................................................103
9.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................103
9.2 Strategy.................................................................................................................................103
9.3 TUPE and Code of Practice on Workforce Matters.................................................................103
9.4 Market Interest.......................................................................................................................104
9.5 Other Relevant Authorities/ Public Engagement.....................................................................104
Section 10: Timetable.......................................................................................................105
10.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................105
10.2 Managing Timetable Risks...................................................................................................105
10.3 Timetable ............................................................................................................................106
Appendices .......................................................................................................................107
ii
Contents
Appendices
1 Technical Advisor’s Letter 108
2a Waste Flow tonnage Summary to 2035 with 65% Recycling and Composting 109
2b Summary of Partner Municipal Current Waste Management Services 121
3a Summary of Partner Municipal Current Waste Management Strategies 126
3b Status of Partner Authorities’ Waste Local Development Plans 131
4a Waste Management Options & Criteria Development 134
4b Technical Assumptions – Whole document redacted 146
4c Options Evaluation 172
4d Bankability – Redacted version 191
4e Carbon Footprint Assessment 192
5a Project Risk Register – Redacted version 201
5b Contract and Funding Options – Redacted version 230
6a Authority Agreements – Redacted version 249
6b Advisor CVs – Redacted version 250
7a Site Identification 251
8a Procurement and related Costs 254
8b Cost Assumptions – Whole document redacted 255
8c Shadow Tariff Model Summary– Whole document redacted 256
8d Financial Model Assumptions Booklet – Whole document redacted 257
8e Financial Adviser Letter 258
8f Optimism Bias 259
8g Value for Money Databook – Redacted version 268
8h Value for Money 278
8i Funding Support calculation based on DEFRA PFI model – Whole document redacted 285
9a Market Testing Report 286
10a Programme Timetable 288
iii
Abbreviations and Glossary

4Ps Public Private Partnerships Programme
AD Anaerobic Digestion
AMRs Annual Monitoring Reports
APC Air Pollution Control
BA Bottom Ash
BMW Biodegradable Municipal Waste
CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
CAUDP Caerphilly Council Approved Unitary Development Plan
CCBC Caerphilly County Borough Council
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CLO Compost-like Output
DBFO Design, Build, Finance and Operate
DBFOM Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DQIs Design Quality Indicators
EA Environment Agency
EAW Environment Agency Wales
EfW Energy from Waste
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Act, 1990, as amended
EU European Union
FBC Final Business Case
FY Financial Year
HWRC Household Waste Recycling Centre
IAA Inter Authority Agreement
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ISDS Invitation to Submit Detailed Solutions
ISOS Invitation to Submit Outline Solutions
ISRS Invitation to Submit Refined Solutions
JWA Joint Working Agreement
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
LAS Landfill Allowance Scheme
LDP Local Development Plan
LGCA Local Government (Contracts) Act
MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment
MCC Monmouthshire County Council
MHT Mechanical Heat Treatment
MSG Members’ Steering Group
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MWMS Municipal Waste Management Strategy
NCC Newport City Council
NNDR National Non -Domestic Rates
iv
NPC Net Present Cost

NPV Net Present Value
OBC Outline Business Case
OGC Office of Government Commerce
OJEU Official Journal of the European Union
PFI Private Finance Initiative
PIN Prior Information Notice
PPP Public Private Partnership
PQQ Pre-Qualification Questionnaire
PSC Public Sector Comparator
PUK Partnerships UK
R&C Recycling & Composting
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
RCAF Regional Capital Access Fund
ROCS Renewable Obligation Certificates
RPI Retail price Index
RSG Revenue Support Grant
RWP Regional Waste Plan
SA Sustainability Appraisal
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SE W R W P SE Wales Regional Waste Plan
SoPC 4 Standardisation of PFI Contract 4
SRF Solid Recovered Fuel
TAN Technical Advice Note
tCO2 tonnes of carbon dioxide (or CO2 equivalent warming
tpa potential)
tonnes per annum
Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment)
TUPE
Regulations 2006
UDP Unitary Development Plan
UK United Kingdom
VfM Value for Money
VoGCC Vale of Glamorgan County Council
The Assembly Government Welsh Assembly Government
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WET Act Waste and Emissions Trading Act
WCA Waste Collection Authority
WDA Waste Disposal Authorities
WIDIP Waste Infrastructure Development Programme
WIDP Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme
WRATE Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment
v
Section 1: Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership arose from the joint need of the partners to procure
treatment facilities for their residual municipal waste. Concerns about the production of large
quantities of municipal waste and the resulting negative impact on the environment of its
continued disposal by landfill further motivated the five partner authorities to seek a solution to
their mutual problems.
1.1.2 The arguments for change are compelling from an environmental and sustainability
perspective; there are also potentially significant economic benefits. Disposal to landfill is the
least favourable waste management option and is at the bottom of the hierarchy of waste
solutions.
1.1.3 The Welsh Assembly Government has made it clear that future strategic direction and
resources will be directed towards local authority policies which are based on very high levels
of recycling and composting. Nevertheless, and even with these challenging targets achieved,
there will remain significant levels of residual waste which must be disposed of through
techniques offering the best balance of environmental and economical benefits.
1.1.4 Each of the five Prosiect Gwyrdd partner authorities will deliver their own solutions to achieve
the recycling and composting levels required by the Assembly Government, and some have
already invested considerable funds to deliver the infrastructure necessary to develop services
further. Others will need to review their waste strategies, and perhaps investigate separate
partnering relationships with Prosiect Gwyrdd partners to deliver increased levels of recycling
and composting. Very high levels of financial investment will certainly be necessary in the
next ten years.
1.1.5 The five local authority partners - Cardiff Council, Vale of Glamorgan Council, Newport City
Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council and Monmouthshire County Council - signed a
formal Memorandum of Understanding in July 2007 to deliver the work required in preparation
for a procurement process for new waste treatment facilities.
1.1.6 In order to assess financial cost, environmental and sustainability impacts as well as to form
the basis for a sound procurement bid for support funding, a worked example has been
prepared with this outline business case. This Outline Business Case therefore includes a
reference example technology and an assumed theoretical location to allow costing of
transport parameters. The reference site is yet to be determined; it is the ambition of the
project to provide a reference site for bidders to utilise within their proposals.
1.1.7 Prosiect Gwyrdd is a technology neutral procurement whereby the procurement strategy,
output specification and evaluation plan will be devised to ensure that the project is open to
any technology that can produce the desired environmental outputs of the specification and
will fit within the affordability scope of this project.
1.1.8 The Prosiect Gwyrdd team has now completed a detailed appraisal of residual waste
technology options which has included a WRATE environmental analysis as part of the search
for a Best Practical Environmental Option. Similarly, any site which would be deemed suitable
in the future would have to satisfy a comprehensive array of suitability criteria and
environmental assessments.
1
1.1.9 Prosiect Gwyrdd may become the most significant waste management collaboration between
local authorities in Welsh history and, once funding pathways are determined, might involve
very substantial private investment and partnership between the public and private sectors.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The EU and UK Governments have set stringent recycling targets and have detailed their
proposed financial penalties for Local Authorities who fail to deliver alternative waste
management arrangements by 2010. In addition, they have advised that additional infraction
costs may be levied on contributing authorities where the UK as a whole exceeds its landfill
targets. The EU Landfill Directive along with the latest European targets for the diversion of
biodegradable municipal waste from landfill is driving Local Authorities to reduce urgently their
biodegradable waste input to landfill facilities.
1.2.2 Through its Making the Connections agenda the Welsh Assembly Government has expressed
an expectation that Local Authorities will jointly develop sustainable regional waste
management solutions. The Assembly Government is also conducting an appraisal of options
for sustainable municipal waste management beyond 2009/10 that seeks to identify their
preferred options for municipal waste management targets to 2025 and the actions needed to
achieve the targets.
1.2.3 Prosiect Gwyrdd is a Joint Regional Partnership for the procurement of a sustainable residual
waste treatment solution. Each partner is a Waste Disposal Authority and collectively they
safely treat and dispose of approximately 475,000 tonnes of municipal waste each year.
1.2.4 The project scope demands high standards, meeting all environmental and regulatory
requirements and will allow the market to define potential solutions for municipal and
commercial waste to bring about a transformation in practice. The Partnership is committed to
controlling waste growth, and has agreed to work towards a combined growth rate reducing
from 1.45% per annum to 0.55% per annum.
1.2.5 Investment will be needed to further develop the recycling and composting schemes for all
authorities beyond current plans in order to meet the Assembly Government’s actual and
proposed targets. While Prosiect Gwyrdd will not develop recycling and composting schemes,
including kerbside collection, HWRCs and bring banks, these services form a core role in
determining the composition of the residual waste to be managed through the Project, and
therefore any plans will need to be considered alongside Prosiect Gwyrdd proposed outputs.
1.2.6 Development of appropriate recycling and composting schemes may allow the partner
authorities to meet their landfill allowance targets, particularly if the higher recycling and
composting targets being proposed by the Assembly Government are met. However, residual
waste disposal will still be required, and landfill void space in the South East Wales region (as
well as Wales as a whole and across the UK) is declining. Alternative treatment strategies are
a necessity.
1.3 Strategic Waste Management Objectives

1.3.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd will manage the municipal waste stream from the 5 partner authorities. The
primary and most urgent focus of the project will be to procure and deliver a treatment plant
for the residual waste from the five partner authorities. Subject to approvals, the scope of the
Partnership may be expanded in the future to include the development of additional
infrastructure in future years to treat other municipal waste, for example that which the partner
authorities collect as source separated recyclables or organics.
2
1.3.2 The Outline Business Case focuses on the following agreed scope for residual waste:
Prosiect Gwyrdd will manage some of the residual municipal waste from each of the five
partner authorities, amounting to 35% of the total MSW stream. Any remaining waste over
and above this quantity will be the responsibility of each local authority.
The project will be based on waste flows for each authority achieving the recycling and
composting targets (including for food waste) proposed by the Assembly Government in the
consultation paper issued in October 2007, with the exception that the final proposed target in
2024/25 will be replaced by 65% source-segregated recycling and composting (rather than
70%). The waste flow modelling will be based on assumptions on the type and quantity of
each material to be diverted through recycling and composting to determine the composition
of residual waste requiring treatment.
Over the long term, this will lead to residual waste amounting to 35% of the total annual MSW
arising from 2024/25.
Residual waste treatment facilities will be sized according to achievement of the high recycling
rates, and subject to agreement of appropriate waste growth rates.
The Assembly Government’s proposed limits of MSW arising being treated through EfW will
be observed as necessary; it is recognised that there will be surplus residual MSW above this
level in the early years of the contract (prior to achieving the highest levels of recycling and
composting by 2024/5), and this will be assumed to be disposed of to landfill by each
authority.
Where and if appropriate, capacity for waste from third parties (commercial waste or waste
from other local authorities) will be incorporated into the facility size to enable economies of
scale, and secondarily to address the risk of not achieving the planned high source-
segregated recycling and composting levels.
Residual waste treatment facilities will be sized to address the proposed Assembly
Government limit on MSW disposal to landfill (10% in 2019/20, 5% in 2024/25).
The sensitivity of the reference technology example will be tested to determine the impact of
source-segregated recycling levels and waste growth on LAS performance and capacity
requirements.
1.3.3 In terms of the affordability assessment, the OBC will address the cost of management of the
residual waste in its entirety:
The cost comparison for each of the options will be against the baseline case of meeting the
Assembly Government’s higher recycling targets and disposal of all remaining residual waste
to landfill.
The cost of achieving the high recycling and composting rates will be met by each individual
authority and will lie outside the scope of this OBC. It will be the responsibility of each
authority to determine these costs for their own decision-making purposes.
1.3.4 This is a vital time for both waste and planning strategies in Wales; The National Waste
Strategy is currently under review with the Assembly Government indicating an ambitious
stance on recycling and composting, Planning Authorities are progressing Local Development
Plans which will shape land use and future development, and the First Review of the SE
Wales Regional Waste Plan is set to change its direction on the technical and spatial strategy
for waste facilities in the region.
1.3.5 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership is the ideal vehicle to provide an integrated approach,
complementing the work of the individual authorities in delivering higher recycling and
composting rates whilst providing the scale to ensure that national Welsh objectives and
targets are delivered.
3
1.4 Procurement Strategy and Reference Technology Example

1.4.1 The Partnership authorities have agreed to proceed to procurement for residual waste
treatment services for an agreed proportion of the Partnership’s combined residual waste.
However, it is recognised that each authority will be responsible for the management and
procurement of associated services required to support the successful delivery of the project.
Such service elements that lie outside Prosiect Gwyrdd include:
Waste Minimisation and Education Activities

Collection of waste and recyclables;
Management and operation of household waste recycling centres;
Residual waste transfer and transportation;
Materials recycling facilities;
Green waste composting facilities;
Food waste processing facilities; and
Disposal or treatment capacity for the remainder of the residual waste that lies outside the
project.
1.4.2 Each authority has a range of contracts and agreements in place for these services as
summarised in Section 2. These services will be maintained on a local level, however the
partner authorities have not ruled out the possibility of future joint arrangements for these
excluded elements that may be the subject of a separate procurement exercise.
1.4.3 The scope of the services for the Reference Project is therefore as follows:
Residual waste treatment facility – design, build, finance and operate a waste treatment facility
or facilities to treat a defined proportion of residual waste such that BMW is diverted from
landfill in accordance with performance standards;
Haulage – haulage of rejects, process residues and recovered materials from the treatment
facility to end markets, users and appropriate disposal facilities; and
Disposal – disposal of rejects and process residues from the treatment facility to appropriate
facilities.
1.4.4 In order to mitigate the authorities’ potential LAS exposure in the years prior to the operational
date of the treatment facility, each authority is developing its own plans to:
increase its source-segregation of materials for recycling, recovery and composting, in support
of the higher targets being proposed by the Assembly Government;
arrange or retain its own interim disposal contracts for residual waste, and
Increase waste minimisation awareness and education and maximise the use of the facilities
provided.
1.4.5 It is the Partnership’s intention to let a residual waste treatment contract for management of up
to 35% of the local authorities’ MSW arising. The service will exclude waste and recyclate
collection, HWRC management, composting, materials recycling facilities and waste transfer.
The service will also exclude the management of residual waste outside the 35% MSW arising
limit. The service will include the onward marketing, treatment, transport and disposal of
process outputs and residues.
1.4.6 The Partnership will develop an Output Specification for the project prior to procurement. The
Output Specification will describe only what is required from the contract, leaving the delivery
mechanisms (including the technology type), open for contractors to propose.
4
1.4.7 Waste managed under the contract will comprise residual waste (remaining after source
segregated recycling) amounting to a maximum of 35% of MSW arising, including:
Household waste;
Commercial wastes as collected by or on behalf of the authorities;
Residual waste from HWRCs;
Litter and refuse from cleansing of public highways, public areas, footpaths, public parks and
similar areas; and
Any waste that the authorities have a statutory duty to accept.
1.4.8 The OBC focuses on the delivery of the residual waste treatment infrastructure required to
ensure the necessary level of diversion from landfill and achievement of targets for the
recovery of value from waste. Whilst the Partnership has a challenging long-term recycling
target, its waste flow modelling has shown that achievement of this target will still leave an
estimated annual 220,000 tonnes of residual waste for processing.
1.4.9 In order to fully understand the potential requirements and costs to address this issue, the
Partnership in conjunction with its technical and financial advisers has undertaken an
appraisal of a broad, representative range of technology solutions. Based on the outcome of
the appraisal and the operating experience of the technologies at the time of its completion,
Energy from Waste (EfW) has been identified as the reference technology example option to
take forward to the overall Reference Project. It is acknowledged that alternative
technologies may gain credibility after the completion of the options appraisal and as the
procurement commences. The Partnership is therefore committed to ensuring that there is full
opportunity for a range of different solutions to come forward for assessment during
procurement.
1.4.10 Each technology option (and landfill disposal) has been evaluated according to its carbon
footprint. The Environment Agency’s WRATE tool has been used to determine the carbon
footprint of each option, expressed as global warming potential in units of tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalents (tCO2). The appraisal has taken into account all aspects of the residual
waste treatment process, including:
Transport to the facility or landfill;

Construction & operation of the facility;
Transport of process outputs from the facility to markets or disposal; and
Fate of process outputs.
1.4.11 The full WRATE carbon footprint assessment results in Appendix 4e show that the use of
landfill as the prime method for managing residual waste generates the highest carbon impact.
The Energy from Waste (EfW) options offer significant carbon savings in comparison to landfill
alone. This is attributed to the positive impacts of recycling metals from bottom ash and lower
quantities of waste sent to landfill. These savings are balanced in part by the negative
impacts of additional transport and construction and operation of EfW facilities.
1.4.12 The Mechanical / Biological Treatment (MBT) options again offer carbon savings in
comparison to landfill alone, although not of the order of the EfW options. Considerable
savings are made through the recycling of metals in the MBT process. However, this is
significantly affected by the intensity of operating two treatment facilities, higher quantities of
process outputs to landfill (and in the case of option 4b, additional transport to an off site RDF
combustion facility).
5
1.4.13 As well as sustainability and environmental criteria, the ‘bankability’ of the various waste
technology solutions has been a key consideration of the Partnership's options appraisal. A
review of existing facilities was undertaken in December 2007 by the project team to establish
the track record of each technology. The evidence base suggests that conventional EfW
technologies are currently considered the most bankable, with the longest track record and
therefore carrying a greater degree of confidence on the performance and costs associated
with these technologies.
1.5 Option Appraisal Summary

1.5.1 Table 1 below summarises the overall evaluation of each option against all criteria. Further
discussion on the evaluation scores and approach is provided. The technology option of one
EfW facility with bottom ash being recycled (option 2a) scores the best against all criteria, and
this relative performance is maintained under the sensitivity-testing exercises. This option is
considered deliverable, and therefore has been selected as the reference technology example
project for Prosiect Gwyrdd’s Outline Business Case. This choice of the reference technology
example for the OBC does not determine the final outcome and Prosiect Gwyrdd remains a
technology neutral procurement.
Table 1: Options Evaluation Summary
BMW diverted through treatment
Recycling & composting through

BMW performance (tonnes
Carbon footprint (2019/20)
Flexibility - composition
Adaptability to quantity
End market availability

Flexibility - legislation
Total cost (NPV) £M
treatment (2019/20)
Planning likelihood
Proven on MSW
2019/20)
Total
Option
Weighting 10% 40% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 100%
Raw scores
1) Landfill 39,810 313.9 5 2 5 3 5 0 0 1
2a) 1xEfW, BA recycling 14,170 239.1 5 4 3 1 4 62,480 6.6% 3
2b) 1xEfW, no BA recycling 13,891 251.7 5 4 3 1 3 62,480 1.2% 3
4a) MBT, RDF combusted on-site 21,534 347.5 3 3 2 2 3 62,742 5.7% 3
4b) MBT, RDF combusted off-site 23,310 356.6 3 3 2 2 3 62,742 5.7% 2
Normalised scores
Scoring (1=best, 0=worst)
1) Landfill 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2a) 1xEfW, BA recycling 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00
2b) 1xEfW, no BA recycling 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.19 1.00
4a) MBT, RDF combusted on-site 0.71 0.08 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.86 1.00
4b) MBT, RDF combusted off-site 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.86 0.50
Weighted scores (high=good) Ranking

1) Landfill 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 5
2a) 1xEfW, BA recycling 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.89 1
2b) 1xEfW, no BA recycling 0.10 0.36 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.78 2
4a) MBT, RDF combusted on-site 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.34 6
4b) MBT, RDF combusted off-site 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.26 7
6
1.6 Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual Structures

1.6.1 The Authorities have agreed and implemented a risk management strategy that will ensure a
proactive and consistent approach to both strategic and operational risk relating to the Project.
A Risk Management Register is established that sets out the risks during the procurement of
the Project and estimated contract risks. The Register commences from the development of
the Outline Business Case. A risk mitigation strategy has been applied with a pre- and post-
mitigated (residual) risk scoring presented, and each risk has been assigned an owner or
owners.
1.6.2 For the purpose of this stage of the project all risks have been considered in one document
including preliminary consideration of allocation for contract risk, however construction,
commissioning and operational risks are all issues that will be dealt with under the contract
(based on SoPC4 / PUK). The risk in each case will be agreed by the tenderers prior to the
appointment of preferred bidder as embedded in the contract. This will be reflected in the
document as the procurement moves forward.
1.6.3 The main risk aspects anticipated are:

Financial
Regulatory
Procurement
Design
Political
Planning
Construction & Commissioning
Operational
Environmental
7
1.6.4 In order to manage the risk posed by several combined/ interacting factors, further scenario
modelling has been conducted to underpin the base case and our overall risk assessment.
1.6.5 As a result of rigorous preparation, review and approval of the OBC, the risk of failing to
deliver a signed contract is considered to be low. There is evidence of an increasing market
capacity with new entrants to the waste market and considerable interest already shown
through discussions with suppliers.
1.7 Project Team and Governance

1.7.1 It has been agreed in consultation with the Partnership’s external legal advisers that the most
suitable arrangement for governing the project is a Joint Executive/Committee with one Lead
Authority1. Whilst there is a broad consensus on this, future arrangements remain subject to
formal decisions by the individual Authorities. The current pre procurement governance
arrangements are an Officer Steering Group arrangement with a Non-decision making
Members’ Steering Group.
1.7.2 The recommended Governance arrangement would provide the implementation of the Joint
Executive/Committee’s decisions for procurement through a Lead Authority. With this
governance model, once the Waste Management Contract has reached financial close, the
benefits and obligations of the Contract will be passed back by the lead Authority to the other
four Authorities.
1.7.3 Acting through the Lead Authority, the Authorities intend to award a contract based on HM
Treasury's Standardisation of PFI Contracts guidance and, where derogations are required,
will base such derogations on the guidance relating to waste sector specific derogations
issued in May 2006. Sector specific principles will be followed as set out in 4Ps Waste
Management Procurement Pack.
1
A Joint Committee Structure with a nominated Lead Authority will be recommended to Councils in
2008
8
1.7.4 Using the experience of the external advisers, other public sector contacts and the assigned
Project Transactor the Authorities will seek to incorporate lessons learned on other similar
projects.
9
1.8 Sites, Planning and Design

1.8.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd aims to offer a potential site in local authority control for use in the
Competitive Dialogue process. By offering a potential site to bidders Prosiect Gwyrdd hopes
to maximise the competitive potential during the tendering process by providing interested
parties with a potentially suitable location upon which to base their solutions. This approach
does not prevent bidders putting forward other sites under their control as part of their bid and
may form a discussion point during the dialogue stage. Prosiect Gwyrdd would ultimately
judge the merits of each tender during the evaluation stages of the procurement.
1.8.2 Prosiect Gwyrdd intends to continue its investigation of potential sites to offer for the
procurement, as well as providing access to sites already identified in the RWP. It is
recognised that while any site offered by the Partnership could be scoped for suitability, only
limited progress for planning would be possible. Responsibility for establishing full planning
permission would lie with the successful bidder, as a detailed planning application and
associated EIA would be dependent on the specific technology and design.
1.9 Costs, Budget and Finance

1.9.1 Section 8 reviews in detail the substantial costs required to successfully deliver a solution that
meets the Partnership’s residual waste requirements whilst observing the Assembly
Government’s waste policy aims. In addition to the procurement costs (projected to be in
excess of £2.6m), the cost of the Reference Project itself is estimated to be in the region of
£1.0 billion.
1.9.2 The VfM Assessment undertaken by the Partnership confirmed that the project meets the
OGC and HM Treasury’s three key qualitative criteria - viability, desirability and achievability
and that the initial programme level decision to utilise a DBFOM contract offers value for
money.
1.9.3 The result of the affordability analysis shows that ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’
option has the lowest expected cost both in nominal terms (£925 million) and in Net Present
Value terms (£365 million). This results in a saving of £222 million in nominal terms and £61
million in NPV terms when compared to the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ option.
1.9.4 The aggregated Partnership Budget when compared against the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’
option results in a Budget Gap of some £675 million in nominal terms. The resultant
Affordability Gap is £453 million when compared with the costs of developing the Reference
Project option.
1.9.5 Given the magnitude of the Gap that arises under both options, it is clear that partnering
authorities will face a significant financial challenge in managing their future residual waste
arrangements, irrespective of the final option that is chosen. In addition, these results assume
that the Assembly Government will provide direct funding support to the project, at least equal
to that which DEFRA provides to similar waste schemes in England. Clearly, the level and
nature of external support is crucial to the affordability argument of the Partnership pursuing
an option around developing a ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’.
1.9.6 The Partnership is aware that the Base Case financial results limit the affordability argument
for the project. However, this serves to highlight the financial cost associated with
implementing new policy directives whilst moving away from the traditional, unsustainable
landfill disposal route.
10
1.9.7 In establishing its Base Case the Partnership has adopted prudent and defendable
assumptions. These assumptions have been tested for sensitivity to change to assess the
robustness of the Reference Project. The results confirmed that the Base Case assumptions
were not unduly sensitive to change, with the 14 sensitivities producing an affordability
envelope. Whilst this methodology provides the overall potential affordability envelope for
the Partnership it is for the individual Councils to evaluate and sign off their individual
affordability for the project based on their own financial profiles.
1.9.8 Finally, Section 8 confirmed the importance of the need to understand the Welsh Assembly
Government’s plans to financially support partnerships across Wales in relation to residual
waste. Whilst this uncertainty exists the Partnership is unable to present Members with a
clearly defined affordability position for them to consider. It is hoped that over the coming
months this uncertainty will be removed and Members can then be presented with a clear
affordability position. At this stage the Outline Business Case will be submitted in final form,
including Members’ commitment to the affordability position but currently this section of the
Outline Business Case is greyed out to identify that an updated text will be required in this
respect.
1.10 Payment Mechanism

1.10.1 The Partnership’s objectives in relation to the Payment Mechanism are to:
Incentivise the Contractor to deliver to the agreed service standards;

Ensure that the Payment Mechanism is bankable whilst still delivering the required standards
and allowing the Authority to ensure good service;
Ensure that the Payment Mechanism is workable and enforceable through the adoption of
clear, simple and deliverable objectives that are measurable; and
Utilise the proposed template Payment Mechanism and to build on lessons learned by other
authorities.
1.11 Balance Sheet Treatment

1.11.1 The Authority intends to structure the Project so that a sufficient balance of property related
risks are transferred to the private sector provider to enable the transaction to be treated as
off-balance sheet by the public sector on the same basis as if the Authority was to apply for
PFI credits under the criteria required by DEFRA in relation to English projects. The UK
Government has signalled through the Budget its intention to move away from UK GAAP to
applying International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the public sector. No guidance
has yet been published as to the implications for accounting for UK projects like Prosiect
Gwyrdd - but the indications of the discussions to date suggest (1) that the application of IFRS
would lead to the project being accounted for as "on balance sheet" and (2) that work is being
done to ensure that the application of IFRS does not in itself have a material impact on
Council Tax. The Partnership will continue to ensure that it follows developments on the
application of IFRS and its implications for the project.
1.12 Stakeholder Communications

1.12.1 The principal focus of the partnership thus far has been internal, although the Project and
individual authorities have engaged with external stakeholders and the public to an extent.
The partners recognise the need for comprehensive stakeholder/ Community engagement,
and the communications strategy will be the main vehicle for doing this. Engagement with
11
neighbouring authorities has been conducted through the Connecting South East Wales
Board and the SE Wales Regional Waste Planning Group.
1.13 Timetable
1.13.1 To ensure delivery of the Project in accordance with the Authorities' required timescales, the
Authorities have put in place plans to ensure the availability of necessary resources both
internally through the establishment of a dedicated project team and externally through the
appointment of suitably qualified and experienced advisers.
1.13.2 The procurement timetable is premised on the partnership obtaining a reference site, with
initial technical appraisals completed prior to commencement of the competitive dialogue
phase. It also assumes that within six to eight weeks of the appointment of the preferred
bidder a full planning application will be made by the bidder, and that a full EIA will be
compiled during the bidding phase of the project. The procurement process will use the
competitive dialogue procedure as it provides time for a planning application process,
including the completion of a full EIA. Financial close will not take place before a full planning
permission is granted by the relevant council with a commercial close anticipated to take place
in 2011.
1.13.3 It is the Partnership’s view is that the timetable is ambitious but achievable. Prior to the issue
of the OJEU notice, five months have been allowed for the preparation of comprehensive
documentation so that bidders have full information from the start so as not to cause delay in
subsequent stages of the procurement. The evaluation methodology will also be fully
developed during this period. The procurement period is just over 24 months from the placing
of the OJEU notice to contract award. The Partnership considers this to be adequate to
complete the competitive dialogue process.
12
Section 2: Background
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Project is a Joint Regional Partnership for the procurement of a sustainable residual
waste treatment solution involving five South East Wales local authorities: Cardiff Council,
Vale of Glamorgan Council, Newport City Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council and
Monmouthshire County Council. As Waste Disposal Authorities they safely treat and dispose
of approximately 475,000 tonnes of municipal waste each year.
2.1.2 The EU and UK Governments have set stringent recycling targets and have detailed their
proposed penalties for Local Authorities who fail to deliver alternative waste management
arrangements by 2010. In addition, they have advised that infraction costs may be levied. The
EU Landfill Directive along with the latest European targets for the diversion of biodegradable
municipal waste from landfill is driving Local Authorities to reduce their biodegradable waste
input to landfill facilities.
2.1.3 Through its Making the Connections agenda the Welsh Assembly Government has expressed
an expectation that Local Authorities will jointly develop sustainable regional waste
management solutions. The Assembly Government is also conducting an appraisal of options
for sustainable municipal waste management beyond 2009/10 that seeks to identify preferred
options for municipal waste management targets to 2025 and the actions needed to achieve
the targets.
2.1.4 The project scope therefore demands high standards, meet all environmental and regulatory
requirements and is being scoped to allow the market to define potential solutions, for
municipal and commercial waste to bring about a transformation in practice, reducing the
future unsustainable practices associated with current landfilling activity.
2.1.5 The benefits of partnership working include the following:
the scale of a project is particularly relevant in attracting strong market interest – an important
driver of value-for money;
the availability of suitable sites is not evenly distributed across the territories of all Authorities;
transport links and logistics dictate cooperation across Authority boundaries; and
economies of scale, which are another important driver of value-for money.
2.1.6 There is also the further benefit of potential financial support from the Assembly Government.
2.1.7 The (then four – Caerphilly joined later) Authorities also engaged in a joint scrutiny inquiry with
Members to consider in greater depth the benefits and challenges of joint service delivery of
residual waste activities within a regional setting. The inquiry gathered evidence from several
established waste partnerships with considerable expertise in delivering integrated waste
management contracts, examining both what has been successful and unsuccessful in their
partnerships. The recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Report A Joint Scrutiny of
Partnerships in Waste Management in May 2007 informed subsequent reports to all five
authorities and the aims of the Project are to:
achieve or better their collective responsibilities as Waste Disposal Authorities under the
Landfill Allowance Scheme (Wales) Regulations 2004;
achieve or better future limits on the land filling of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW)
through to 2020 made under amendments to these Regulations;
13
minimise residual BMW to protect the Authorities beyond 2020;

provide a sustainable, affordable, long term solution for residual waste treatment in the South
East Wales Sub-Region;
Develop and demand the highest environmental standards with the use of clean technologies;
and
Minimise financial exposure whilst achieving environmental protection.
2.1.8 A market sounding exercise has already been undertaken through a Prior Information Notice
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) in November 2006.
2.2 Details of Key Characteristics of Area Profile

2.2.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd brings together a diverse group of authorities from the valleys, border and
coastal plain of South East Wales. The Authorities face common challenges in developing
waste management practices, along with individual challenges such as remoteness and high
levels of multiple deprivation.
2.2.2 Caerphilly County Borough Council covers approximately 28,000 hectares including the
communities of Rhymney, Markham Hollybush, Caerphilly, Machen, Risca, Nelson, Crumlin
and Hafodrynys. The authority is located north of Cardiff and is the fourth largest unitary
authority in Wales. There are good transportation links, the M4 motorway being easily
accessible to the south, the Heads of Valleys Road to the north, and train links to Cardiff from
Rhymney, Caerphilly and Risca. The population currently stands at approximately 170,000
with 75,000 properties.
2.2.3 Cardiff Council encompasses a vibrant historic capital city which is currently undergoing
significant modernisation, extending the already successful development of Cardiff Bay. It has
excellent transport links, with the M4 motorway running through the authority and rail links to
South West Wales, the Valleys to the North, Mid Wales and South West England. The
population is currently estimated at 318,000 with 131,000 households. 50,000 of these
residents are rated as being in the worst 10% of multiple deprivation levels in Wales: more
people living in multiple deprivation than any other Unitary Authority in Wales.
2.2.4 Monmouthshire County Council is the largest of the Partnership authorities, covering an
area of 88,000 hectares but with a population of approximately 87,000 is also the least
densely populated. The 39,000 households are spread throughout a predominantly rural area
with key population centres in the market towns of Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth.
The authority is home to the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Brecon
Beacons National Park on its northern boundary. As a result the local economy is partially
reliant on tourism, this accounting for 25% of employment in the area.
2.2.5 Newport City Council has a multi-cultural population of 139,000 living in approximately
59,000 households, set to grow to 60,000 properties. It is an authority with strong industrial
heritage that is expanding its electronics and financial sectors. Covering approximately 19,000
hectares, the City is well linked to Southern Wales and South West England via the M4
motorway and rail links.
2.2.6 Vale of Glamorgan Council bounded to the north by the M4 motorway, with coastline making
up its southern boundary covers approximately 33,000 hectares. The authority has excellent
rail and road links as well as being home to Cardiff International Airport. The population of
approximately 123,000 and 54,000 households covers the communities of Barry, Porthkerry,
Rhoose, Penarth, Penmark, Culverhouse Cross, Welsh St Donats, Cowbridge, Ystradowen
and Coychurch.
14
2.2.7 As unitary authorities, the Prosiect Gwyrdd partners are responsible for the collection and
disposal of municipal waste and recyclates from the kerbside, bring banks and the provision of
Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs), as well as for disposal and treatment
services.
2.3 Analysis of Waste Arising

2.3.1 The tables below summarise the current and historical waste arising for each of the
authorities. In many cases there are changes in MSW arising which are understood to be
attributed to changes in the definitions of MSW components by the Assembly Government for
reporting purposes.
Table 2.1 Caerphilly County Borough Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07
Collected Collected Annual %
HWRC Other
Household Trade 2 Total MSW Increase /
Waste MSW
Waste1 Waste Decrease
2004/05 60,535 10,325 23,639 23,187 117,686
2005/06 61,521 10,583 23,747 19,656 115,507 -1.85%
2006/07 60,961 11,082 27,123 9,797 108,963 -5.67%
1 Waste from kerbside collections and bring banks
2 Including street cleansing & gully, bulky, grounds maintenance wastes
Table 2.2 Cardiff Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07

HWRC Other
Household Trade Total MSW Increase /
1 Waste MSW 2
Waste Waste Decrease
2004/05 100,425 20,106 25,179 41,886 187,596
2005/06 95,694 23,923 21,465 40,125 181,207 -3.31%
2006/07 117,038 26,640 27,888 15,612 187,178 3.40%
Table 2.3 Monmouthshire County Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07
HWRC Other
Household Trade 2 Total MSW Increase /
Waste MSW
2004/05 52,147
2005/06 50,489 -3.18%
2006/07 35,798 2,382 11,284 2,874 52,338 3.66%
Table 2.4 Newport City Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07
HWRC Other
Household Trade Total MSW Increase /
1 Waste MSW 2
Waste Waste Decrease
2004/05 75,498
2005/06 74,179 -1.75%
2006/07 51,305 4,165 11,108 7,492 74,070 -0.15%
Table 2.5 Vale of Glamorgan Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07
Collected Collected HWRC Other Total MSW Annual %
15
Household Trade Waste MSW 2 Increase /

2004/05 68,848
2005/06 70,208 -1.98%
Included in
2006/07 45,387 17,681 4,201 67,267 4.19%
household
2.3.2 Historical waste growth figures have been examined, along with future household and
population figures to estimate future MSW arising. This assessment of waste growth rates is
presented in Appendix 2a. The MSW growth rates used for this project are as follows:
Caerphilly 0.5% MSW growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 0.25% per
year up to 2020, 0% thereafter
Cardiff 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2015, reducing to 1% thereafter
Monmouthshire 1% MSW growth per year up to 2012, 0.5% to 2020, 0%

thereafter
Newport 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2012, reducing to 1% to 2020 and
0.5% thereafter
Vale of Glamorgan 3% MSW growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 1% up to 2015

and 0.5% thereafter
2.3.3 Applying the suggested MSW growth rates to each authority gives an overall partnership
growth rate falling from 1.45% per year to 0.55% per year.
Table 2.6 Forecast of Annual MSW Arising 2006/07 – 2024/25

Caerphilly Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport Vale of Total
(tonnes (tonnes MSW) (tonnes MSW) (tonnes Glamorgan (tonnes
MSW) MSW) (tonnes MSW)
MSW)
2006/07 108,963 187,178 52,338 74,070 67,269 489,817
2009/10 110,605 195,728 53,924 76,247 73,506 510,010
2012/13 111,993 204,669 55,284 79,337 78,762 530,044
2019/20 113,968 221,610 57,247 85,060 82,374 560,260
2024/25 113,968 232,915 57,247 87,208 84,455 575,792
2.4 Details of Current Arrangements for Collection and Disposal

2.4.1 Waste management in the Prosiect Gwyrdd partnership is currently heavily dependent on
disposal to landfill sites. Summaries of the current waste management services provided by
each authority are provided below; more details are provided in Appendix 2b.
2.4.2 Caerphilly County Borough Council currently collects residual waste on a weekly basis,
with dry recyclate collections offered to all residents with two thirds of properties on a weekly
frequency and a third on fortnightly. Fortnightly garden waste collections are offered to 97% of
the borough with further collections of bulky garden and household waste available by
appointment. The authority currently has 2,200 trade customers which receive a weekly
residual collection with the option to also recycle glass, cans and cardboard. A food waste
collection for commercial properties is to be trialled from October 2008. Residual waste is sent
16
to one of three landfill sites. A number of contractual arrangements are in place covering
HWRCs, bring sites, transfer stations, composting, recyclates and landfill.
2.4.3 Cardiff Council provides weekly collections of residual waste and fortnightly collections of co-
mingled dry recyclate and garden waste. Food waste is due to be included in garden waste
collections from 2008/9 once suitable in-vessel facilities are operational. Residual waste
collections are made from 3,000 trade properties, with trials currently taking place on
commercial waste recycling and food waste collections. Residual waste is sent to landfill at the
Council’s Lamby Way site. All services are managed in-house by the Council.
2.4.4 Monmouthshire County Council residents receive weekly residual and dry recyclate
collections. Mixed dry recycling is collected from 70% of households with a further 30%
receiving paper only collections. Garden waste collections are offered to 90% of the authority.
7,000 of these households are currently able to place food waste out with garden waste and
this service will be rolled out to the rest of the County. A pre-paid weekly trade waste
collection is provided. Residual waste is sent via transfer stations to landfill in Wiltshire. A
number of contracts are held for collection, HWRCs, transfer, treatment and disposal.
2.4.5 Newport City Council provides an alternate weekly collection of residual and garden waste
with weekly dry recyclate collections. Kitchen waste collections will be trialled from March
2008. Residual waste is landfilled at the Council’s site at Docks Way. All services are operated
by the council with the exception of kerbside recycling collections which are operated by
Newport Wastesavers.
2.4.6 Vale of Glamorgan Council provides weekly refuse and dry recyclate collections. Garden
waste is collected fortnightly using pre-paid bags, with collection by request only during the
winter quarter. Residual waste and recycling collections are offered to trade customers as part
of the household collection service, with no designated commercial waste collection. Residual
waste is sent to the Trecatti landfill in Merthyr Tydfil. Collection arrangements are managed
by the council, with a number of contracts in place for treatment and disposal of waste.
2.5 Performance of Existing Services

2.5.1 The authorities’ performance in terms of recycling and composting is shown in the tables
below. The projected rates for 2009/10 are based on current plans and scheme roll-outs;
however, all authorities have declared a commitment to work towards the higher recycling and
composting rates being proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government.
Table 2.7 Projected proportions of Municipal Waste Recycled and Composted

1 Food waste Total recycling &
Dry recycling Total composting 1
composting / composting
(%) (%)
digestion (%) (%)
Caerphilly
2
2006/07 16.2 8.4 0 24.6
2007/08 (estimated) 19.5 6.4 0 25.9
2009/10 (projected) 21.5 6.4 0 27.9
Cardiff
2006/07 10.8 7.8 0 18.6
2007/08 (estimated) 14.6 12.7 0 27.3
2009/10 (projected) 17.0 28.1 14.3 45.2
Monmouthshire
17
Food waste Total recycling &

Dry recycling1 Total composting
composting / composting1
(%) (%)
digestion (%) (%)
2006/07 14.4 17.1 1.0 31.6
2007/08 (estimated) 14.8 17.7 1.4 32.5
2009/10 (projected) 16.1 17.8 1.4 33.9
Newport
2006/07 18.8 12.5 0.4 33.3
2007/08 (estimated) 20.4 15.9 0.4 36.2
2009/10 (projected) 20.4 15.9 0.4 36.2
Vale of Glamorgan
2006/07 23.0 7.4 0 30.1
2007/08 (estimated) 23.0 13.1 0 36.5
2009/10 (projected) 23.0 14.0 0.6 37.1
1
Excluding inerts
2
Split between recycling and composting for Caerphilly in 2006/07 may differ from figures elsewhere
in this report due to allocation of wood / timber collected. The figures in the table above are those
reported in WasteDataFlow.
2.5.2 All partner authorities, with the exception of Cardiff Council, will need to invest significantly in
schemes to meet the proposed target of 15% for food waste composting or digestion by
2012/13, and to meet the target of 40% recycling and composting combined by 2009/10. This
is recognised, and each authority is developing its own strategy outside Prosiect Gwyrdd for
meeting future recycling and composting targets.
2.6 Residual Waste Treatment

2.6.1 The following tables indicate the tonnage of MSW disposed to landfill against the allocated
landfill allowances for each authority. There are currently no proposals by the Assembly
Government to allow pooling of landfill allowances within a partnership; each authority must be
self-sufficient.
2.6.2 The data in the table below is based on projections based on current plans for recycling and
composting (as presented above). However, all authorities are committed to work towards the
higher targets proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government, which will reduce the amount of
MSW and BMW disposed to landfill.
Table 2.8 Projections of Landfill dependence with current levels of diversion

Landfill
MSW arising* MSW landfilled BMW landfilled
allowances (t
(t) (t) (t)
BMW)
Caerphilly
2005/06 115,507 67,363
2006/07 108,963 75,000 46,871 61,892
2007/08 (estimated) 109,507 72,298 45,737 56,295
2009/10 (projected) 110,605 70,943 45,010 45,213
Cardiff
18
Landfill
MSW arising* MSW landfilled BMW landfilled
allowances (t
(t) (t) (t)
BMW)
2005/06 181,207 159,298 100,357 106,766
2006/07 187,178 152,115 88,449 97,985
2007/08 (estimated) 189,986 136,812 75,422 89,204
2009/10 (projected) 195,728 105,474 44,770 71,575
Monmouthshire
2005/06 50,489 29,202
2006/07 52,338 35,806 19,559 27,012
2007/08 (estimated) 52,862 35,707 19,372 24,821
2009/10 (projected) 54,463 35,360 19,287 20,434
Newport
2005/06 74,179 43,769
2006/07 74,070 49,984 29,463 40,503
2007/08 (estimated) 74,010 46,051 26,670 37,238
2009/10 (projected) 76,247 47,443 27,476 30,693
Vale of Glamorgan
2005/06 70,202 36,192
2006/07 67,269 44,750 28,123 33,418
2007/08 (estimated) 69,287 41,892 24,767 30,675
2009/10 (projected) 73,506 44,023 25,855 25,063
* Including inerts
2.6.3 It can be seen from the table above, that Vale of Glamorgan will exceed its landfill allowances
for BMW disposal in 2009/10 based on their current recycling and composting plans. It is
projected that Caerphilly, Monmouthshire and Newport will exceed their allowances in
2010/11, while Cardiff will not exceed its allowances until 2013, based on current plans.
2.6.4 As previously stated, all authorities are committed to achieving the higher recycling and
composting rates being proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government. If the authorities meet
these targets, the position with regards to landfill allowances is greatly improved, as shown in
the table below.
Table 2.9 Landfill Allowance position for high recycling and composting
Landfill Allowance position for high recycling and composting
Excess BMW landfilled (+) / surplus allowance available (-) (tonnes BMW)
Vale of
Caerphilly Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport
Glamorgan
2009/10 -11,858 -26,805 -4,045 -5,873 -1,977
2010/11 -6,596 -18,068 -2,582 -4,695 -430
2011/12 -1,334 -9,322 -1,134 -3,591 1,695
2012/13 -5,895 -8,997 -2,816 -3,531 30
2013/14 -4,561 -6,405 -2,194 -2,499 902
2014/15 -3,227 -3,803 -2,772 -1,465 1,776
19
Landfill Allowance position for high recycling and composting

Excess BMW landfilled (+) / surplus allowance available (-) (tonnes BMW)
Vale of
Caerphilly Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport
Glamorgan
2015/16 -4,617 -8,754 -2,724 -4,211 -478
2016/17 -3,289 -6,412 -2,110 -3,312 298
2017/18 -1,962 -4,067 -1,498 -2,211 1,075
2018/19 -634 -1,719 -884 -1,209 1,851
2019/20 -2,776 -7,607 -2,086 -3,286 774
2.6.5 It can be seen that all authorities, with the exception of the Vale of Glamorgan, are likely to
meet their landfill allowance targets throughout if the proposed the Assembly Government
recycling and composting targets are met. The Vale of Glamorgan may be subject to small
shortfalls in a number of years.
2.6.6 The figures in the table above are based on landfill diversion through recycling and
composting to meet the proposed Assembly Government targets. The actual performance
against recycling, composting and landfill allowance targets will depend on the exact materials
segregated, collected and diverted from landfill. Assumptions on the materials and tonnages
diverted are provided in Appendix 2a.
2.7 Waste Composition

2.7.1 A compositional analysis of various municipal waste streams in Wales was carried out in 2003
by AEA Technology for the Welsh Assembly Government: ‘The composition of Municipal Solid
Waste in Wales’. This data has been used as the basis for the composition of collected
household waste and HWRC waste. The average composition for Wales was used for Cardiff,
Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan, while a specific composition was available for
Caerphilly. Newport carried out an analysis of its residual collected household waste in 2006;
this data has been used, taking into account the quantity source separated recyclates in
2006/07 to provide an overall composition of collected household waste.
2.7.2 The tables below show the composition of collected household and HWRC waste for each
authority. In each case the default composition has had to be adjusted to reflect actual or
anticipated materials capture rates.
Table 2.10 Composition of collected household waste
Monmouth- Vale of Average

Caerphilly Cardiff 1 Newport3
shire2 Glamorgan4 Wales
Glass 7.60% 6.40% 5.85% 8.5% 6.86% 7.15%

Paper / Card 20.60% 21.13% 19.32% 21.9% 22.67% 23.62%
Cans / metal 5.50% 4.15% 3.80% 3.2% 4.45% 4.64%
Plastics 12.60% 9.08% 8.30% 8.2% 9.74% 10.15%
Textiles 4% 2.68% 2.45% 2.2% 2.88% 3%
Green Waste 6.00% 18.00% 25.00% 20.5% 12.00% 8.32%
Kitchen waste 28.80% 23.96% 21.92% 22.1% 25.71% 26.79%
Timber 1.60% 0.99% 0.91% 0.4% 1.07% 1.11%
WEEE 0.80% 0.65% 0.60% 0.5% 0.70% 0.73%
Potentially haz 0.50% 0.55% 0.51% 1.6% 0.60% 0.62%
20
Misc comb 6.30% 5.82% 5.33% 6.8% 6.25% 6.51%

Misc non-comb 2.50% 2.48% 2.27% 2.7% 2.66% 2.77%
Haz waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.0% 0.00%
Fines 2.80% 4.11% 3.75% 1.4% 4.41% 4.59%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
1 Composition adjusted to reflect anticipated (2007/08) materials capture of green waste
2 Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of green waste
21
Table 2.11 Composition of HWRC waste
Monmouth- Vale of Average

Caerphilly1 Cardiff Newport
shire2 Glamorgan3 Wales
Glass 1.77% 2.77% 2.71% 1.6% 2.62% 2.77%

Paper / Card 6.03% 9.29% 9.09% 6.0% 8.77% 9.29%
Cans / metal 6.00% 6.99% 9.00% 10.0% 6.60% 6.99%
Plastics 2.63% 3.54% 3.47% 3.1% 3.34% 3.54%
Textiles 2.71% 2.47% 2.42% 3.3% 2.33% 2.47%
Green Waste 12.00% 17.95% 17.56% 18.0% 16.94% 17.95%
Kitchen waste 1.10% 3.15% 3.08% 1.9% 2.97% 3.15%
Timber 30.00% 12.63% 12.36% 5.5% 15.02% 12.63%
WEEE 4.00% 6.69% 6.54% 6.1% 6.31% 6.69%
Potentially haz 1.56% 1.46% 1.43% 0.8% 1.38% 1.46%
Misc comb 6.19% 13.78% 13.49% 21.6% 13.01% 13.78%
Misc non-comb 26.00% 18.49% 18.09% 20.9% 20.00% 18.49%
Haz waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Fines 0.02% 0.78% 0.77% 1.0% 0.74% 0.78%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
1 Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) or anticipated (2007/08) materials capture of
metals, timber, WEEE, and misc non-combustibles
2 Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of metals
3 Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of timber and misc non-
combustibles
2.7.3 These data show that kitchen waste represents the single greatest component of household
collected waste, followed by paper and card. For the HWRC waste, green waste, timber /
wood, other combustibles and non-combustible material form the greatest components of the
waste.
2.7.4 For other waste streams, including trade, other household waste and other non-household
waste, the composition of these residual wastes have been taken from the 2003 AEA
Technology study, presented as an average for the whole of Wales. Waste Flow information is
presented in Appendix 2a.
2.8 Summary
2.8.1 The Partnership is committed to controlling waste growth, and has agreed to work towards a
combined growth rate reducing from 1.45% per annum to 0.55% per annum.
2.8.2 Investment will be needed to further develop the recycling and composting schemes for all
authorities beyond current plans in order to meet the Assembly Government’s proposed
targets. While Prosiect Gwyrdd will not develop recycling and composting schemes, including
kerbside collection, HWRCs and bring banks, these services play a core role in determining
the composition of the residual waste to be managed through the Project, and therefore local
service development plans will need to be considered in parallel with Prosiect Gwyrdd
proposed outputs.
2.8.3 Development of appropriate recycling and composting schemes may allow the Partner
authorities to meet their landfill allowance targets, particularly if the higher recycling and
composting targets being proposed by the Assembly Government are met. However, residual
waste disposal will still be required and with landfill void space in the South East Wales region
22
(as well as Wales as a whole and across the UK) declining, alternative treatment strategies
are needed.
23
Section 3: Strategic Waste Management Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Historical Background
3.1.2 The collection and disposal of waste is a key local authority function underpinning public
health legislation. It has to be seen together with the provision of sewerage and fresh water
systems as ingredients of a society free from the water and rat borne infectious diseases of
the18th century.
3.1.3 Traditionally waste disposal has been synonymous with disposal by landfill, however
legislation to control environmental standards (especially the production of greenhouse gases)
coupled with a lack of void space for new landfill development has resulted in more and more
constraints on the use of landfill as a viable disposal option.
3.1.4 Prosiect Gwyrdd came into existence from the recognition of the need for scale economies in
the treatment of residual waste within South East Wales. Acknowledgement of the scale of
damage and irreversibility resulting from climate change has been very recent, resulting in
new and challenging targets for recycling and composting.
3.1.5 The Welsh Assembly Government has made it clear that landfill reduction and disposal with
energy recovery are the preferred waste management methods which will assist in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposal operations.
3.1.6 Prosiect Gwyrdd
3.1.7 Prosiect Gwyrdd will manage the municipal waste stream from the five partner authorities. The
primary and most urgent focus of the project will be to procure and deliver a treatment plant
for the residual waste from the partner authorities. Subject to approvals, the scope of the
Partnership may be expanded in the future to include requirements for the development of
additional infrastructure to treat other municipal waste, for example that which the partner
authorities collect as source separated recyclables or organics, however such developments
lay outside of the scope of this OBC.
3.1.8 This Outline Business Case will focus on the following agreed scope for residual waste:
Prosiect Gwyrdd will manage some of the residual municipal waste from the five partner
authorities, amounting to 35% of the total MSW stream. Any remaining residual waste over
and above this quantity will be the responsibility of each local authority.
The project will be based on waste flows for each authority achieving the recycling and
composting targets (including food waste) proposed by the Assembly Government in the
consultation paper issued in October 2007, with the exception that the final proposed target
in 2024/25 will be replaced by 65% source-segregated recycling and composting (rather
than 70%). The waste flow modelling will be based on assumptions on the type and quantity
of each material to be diverted through recycling and composting to determine the
composition of residual waste.
Over the long term, this will lead to residual waste amounting to 35% of the total annual
MSW arising from 2024/25.
Residual waste treatment facilities will be sized according to achievement of the high
recycling rates, and subject to agreement of appropriate waste growth rates.
The Assembly Government’s proposed limits of MSW arising being treated through EfW will
be observed as necessary; it is recognised that there will be surplus residual MSW above
24
this level in the early years of the contract (prior to achieving the highest levels of recycling
and composting by 2024/5), and this will be assumed to be disposed of to landfill by each
authority.
Where and if appropriate, capacity for waste from third parties (commercial waste or waste
from other local authorities) will be incorporated into the facility size to enable economies of
scale, and secondarily to address the risk of not achieving the planned high source-
segregated recycling and composting levels.
Residual waste treatment facilities will be sized to address the proposed Assembly
Government limit on MSW disposal to landfill (10% in 2019/20, 5% in 2024/25).
The sensitivity of the example approach will be tested to determine the impact of source-
segregated recycling levels and waste growth on LAS performance and capacity
requirements.
In terms of the affordability assessment, the OBC will address the cost of management of
the residual waste in its entirety.
The cost comparison for each of the options will be against the baseline case of meeting the
Assembly Government’s higher recycling targets and disposal of all remaining residual
waste to landfill.
3.1.9 Overview of Geography
3.1.10 The South East Wales region is home to just under half the population of Wales: 1,350,000
people in 545,000 households. There are three distinct parts to the region, each presenting
different challenges for waste management:
The cities of Cardiff and Newport with a population of some 460,000 in an area of 80 sq
miles at high densities and with pressure for development.
The ‘valleys’ areas with about 615,000 people in about 400 sq miles broadly characterised
by linear urban communities with a long experience of population loss away from the recent
growth points where the valleys meet the M4 corridor.
The rural areas of south Powys, Monmouthshire and the coastal plain spread over 1,700 sq
miles, about 77% of the region, with a population of some 275,000 at low densities and with
significant areas of strong pressures for growth.
The geography economic and demographic make up of each of the partner authority areas
varies significantly. The data below gives some indication as to the broad range within the
Partnership.
Table 3.1 The Geography & Economic and Demographic Growth of each Partner
Partner Authority Area Population Households
Caerphilly 28,000 (ha) 169,521 75,000
Cardiff 14,100 (ha) 317,500 130,900
Monmouthshire 85,100 (ha) 87,000 38,600
Newport 218 sq miles 139,000 59,350
Vale of Glamorgan 33,000 (ha) 123,300 54,100
3.2 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Waste Partnership

3.2.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd (PG) is a Partnership of five local authorities in South East Wales comprising
Caerphilly County Borough Council, Cardiff Council, Monmouthshire County Council, Newport
25
City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council. The partners are working collaboratively at
both Elected Member and Officer levels, with a Joint Scrutiny Committee, and a Member
Steering Group that will become a Joint Committee (and an Officer Steering group that will
become the Project Board).
3.2.2 The Partnership objective is to provide a sustainable, cost effective, long term solution for
residual waste treatment by minimising the use of landfill and the environmental impacts from
waste disposal and to meet the principles of the Regional Waste Plan, Connecting South East
Wales Board and ‘Making the Connections’ Agenda.
3.2.3 A Memorandum of Understanding to work together on residual waste treatment has been
signed by each authority.
3.2.4 Project Aims
3.2.5 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership has the following project aims:
A commitment to meet the Assembly Government’s recycling targets prior to any residual
waste treatment option;
To minimising the environmental impacts of all 5 local authority waste management
operations;
To maximise economies of scale by working in partnership;
To provide best value for the Council tax payer; and
To establish a sustainable, cost effective regional solution for the management of waste for
the South East Wales region, which meets the requirements of all current and future waste
legislation.
3.2.6 Strategic Context: EU and National Framework
3.2.7 The European Union (EU) Landfill Directive 1999 set challenging targets aimed at reducing
the amount of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) that can be sent to landfill in all member
states. These targets are as follows:
By 2010*, to reduce BMW landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995;
By 2013*, to reduce BMW landfill to 50% of that produced in 1995; and
By 2020, to reduce BMW landfill to 33% of that produced in 1995.
(* Includes a 4-year extension for the UK)
3.2.8 These targets have been cascaded down to local authorities through the allocation of Landfill
Allowances.
3.2.9 Waste and Emissions Trading Act
3.2.10 In 2003 the UK Government enacted the Waste and Emissions Trading Act (WET Act), which
is now viewed as one of the key drivers for change in waste management. In Wales, the
Landfill Allowance Scheme (LAS) implemented under the WET Act has cascaded targets
down to the individual local authorities through the allocation of landfill allowances on the
tonnage of BMW that can be disposed to landfill in any given year up to 2020. Penalties for
sending more tonnes of BMW to landfill than the level of allowances held will result in fines of
£200 per tonne of BMW, plus potentially any infraction fines from Europe in the event that
Wales as a whole does not meet the targets above.
3.2.11 Landfill allowances have been set by the Assembly for Wales up to 2009/10, with provisional
allowances given beyond. These provisional allowances for future years are due to be
reviewed during 2008/09 based on more recent waste arising and performance data for each
26
authority. The current LAS targets for the Prosiect Gwyrdd partner authorities are as follows
(expressed as tonnes of BMW, Targets beyond 2009/10 are currently indicative only):
27
Table 3.2 Current LAS Target for Each Partner Authority

2008/09 2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2019/20
Caerphilly 50,760 45,213 29,930 26,108 21,014
Cardiff 80,424 71,575 47,381 41,332 33,267
Monmouthshire 22,631 20,434 13,527 11,800 9,497
Newport 33,972 30,693 20,318 17,724 14,266
Vale of Glamorgan 27,931 25,063 16,591 14,473 11,649
3.2.12 The current (2007/08) rate of landfill tax for active wastes is £24 per tonne. The UK
Government has confirmed that from 1st April 2008 it will increase annually by £8 per tonne
until at least 2010/11, by when it will be £48 per tonne.
3.2.13 The provisions of the WET Act together with landfill tax should make options such as
increased recycling, composting and residual waste treatment more cost effective than landfill
disposal. This is examined in more detail as an options evaluation in Section 4.
3.3 Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS)

3.3.1 National Waste Strategy
3.3.2 The Welsh Assembly Government published ‘Wise about Waste: the National Waste Strategy
for Wales’ in June 2002. The primary objectives of the strategy are two-fold:
To make Wales a model for sustainable waste management; and
To comply with the requirements of relevant EU Directives and UK legislation.
3.3.3 The strategy sets out a number of targets for municipal waste arising, waste reduction and
recycling / composting, as follows:
By 2010, achieve a reduction in waste produced equivalent to at least 10% of the 1998
arising figure;
By 2009/10 (and to apply beyond) waste arising per household should be no greater than
those (for Wales) in 1997/98;
By 2020 waste arising per person should be less than 300kg per annum; and
By 2009/10 and beyond, at least 40% recycling / composting with a minimum of 15%
composting (from source segregated materials only) and a minimum 15% recycling.
3.3.4 Future Directions for Waste Management in Wales (the Welsh Assembly Government
Discussion Paper)
3.3.5 Wise about Waste is now due for revision, with consultation due to commence in 2008 and
likely to continue into 2009. The Assembly Government’s Department of Environment,
Sustainability and Housing has recently made a series of policy statements and published a
paper for discussion, entitled ‘Future Directions for Municipal Waste Management in Wales’.
This paper, published in October 2007, sets out proposed new targets for waste recycling and
composting, landfill and residual waste treatment for consultation.
3.3.6 These proposed targets are shown below:
28
Table 3.3 Proposed Assembly Government targets for Waste Recycling and Composting, Landfill
and Residual waste
2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2019/20 2024/25
Minimum levels of
40% 52% 58% 64% 70%
recycling/composting (or AD)
Minimum levels of composting (or
AD) of source separated food
waste from kitchens as part of the - 15% 15% 15% 15%
combined recycling/composting
target above
Maximum level of energy from
- 30% 30% 30% 30%
waste2
Maximum level of landfill - - - 10% 5%
Maximum level of residual
household waste per person per - - - - 150 kg
annum
3.3.7 The Assembly Government is proposing the higher recycling and composting targets to
ensure that Welsh local authorities meet their Landfill Allowance Scheme targets up to and
including 2019/20 without the a reliance on alternative residual waste treatment. However, as
landfill capacity runs out, and the environmental benefits of recovering energy from waste
rather than disposal to landfill become a higher priority, the development of energy from waste
capacity will become more important. The cap on energy from waste at 30% of MSW arising
has been set to ensure thermal treatment does not ‘crowd out’ recycling efforts, and that any
capacity procured is sustainable, deliverable and bankable in the long term.
2
The Welsh Assembly Government has suggested that a sliding scale of 42% from 2013 to 30% by
2024/25 for EfW is appropriate to facilitate the anticipated landfill shortages until the highest recycling
and composting targets are met, this is expected to be clarified Autumn 2008
29
3.3.8 In this paper, the Assembly Government also clearly sets out its view of waste treatment
technologies, expressing concern over the availability of markets for outputs from Mechanical
Biological Treatment (MBT) and Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT). It is advising local
authorities not to specify that MBT must be used, and not to procure MHT until the technology
and markets for outputs have become more proven within the UK. Furthermore, the paper is
also calling for a potential ban on the land-spreading of treated outputs from non-source
segregated municipal waste from 2016.
3.3.9 Consultation will also consider whether the targets are to become statutory with any penalties
being imposed for failure.
3.3.10 This Outline Business Case is built around each authority meeting the high recycling and
composting targets proposed in this discussion paper prior to the treatment of residual waste.
30
3.3.11 Municipal Waste Management Strategies
3.3.12 The five partner authorities, Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouth, Caerphilly and Newport
have each produced a waste strategy within the past five years. However, such has been the
speed of change and the variation in targets and preferred solutions required by the Assembly
Government that these strategies are not necessarily an accurate reflection of current
collection, recycling and disposal requirements. A number of partner authorities have begun
to implement services, or commence capital programmes which go beyond those described in
their current waste strategies, in order to further increase recycling and composting rates.
3.3.13 A summary of the waste strategies for the individual authorities is presented in Appendix 3a.
These strategies include elements of waste minimisation, initiatives for recycling and
composting, and residual waste management. Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan have
indicated a preference for residual waste to be managed through MBT, while the other
authorities have not stated a preference.
3.3.14 Waste Planning Strategies
3.3.15 Waste planning policy within Wales is set out in Technical Advice Note (TAN) 21. The
planning framework is implemented via Regional Waste Plans (RWP); specific to this project
is the South East Wales Regional Waste Plan, being developed by the South East Wales
Regional Waste Group. The South East region of Wales includes the following authorities:
Blaenau Gwent;
Brecon Beacons National Park;
Cardiff;
Caerphilly;
Merthyr Tydfil;
Monmouthshire;
Newport;
Rhondda Cynon Taff;
South Powys;
Torfaen; and
Vale of Glamorgan.
3.4 South East Wales Regional Waste Plan

3.4.1 The RWP is a land-use framework to help planning and controlling the development of an
integrated network of facilities to recover, treat and dispose of waste in South East Wales in a
way which will satisfy modern environmental standards and meet the targets set by European
and national legislation. The first RWP was agreed by the Members Steering Group (MSG),
endorsed by all of the local authorities in the region and published in March 2004, to be
updated every three years; the first Review was put to consultation which closed in December
2007. That review has now been approved and will be published later in 2008.
3.4.2 The underlying principles of the RWP are:

Sustainability;
Waste hierarchy;
Proximity; and
Regional self-sufficiency.
31
3.4.3 The original RWP (March 2004) concluded that residual waste from the region is best
managed through Mechanical Biological Treatment.
3.4.4 The RWP is taken forward at a local level through the Local Development Plan (LDP)
documents; including the process for identification of any new sites and the actual location of
any waste facilities.
3.4.5 Review of the South East Wales Regional Waste Plan
3.4.6 The Welsh Assembly Government has given the responsibility of preparing, monitoring and
reviewing the RWP to the South East Wales Regional Waste Group. This group is led by a
Steering Group of councillors from the 11 Local Planning Authorities in the region with a
Technical Group of officers from local government, the Assembly Government, Environment
Agency (EA) and other government bodies, and representatives from the waste industry and
environmental groups.
3.4.7 The RWP 1st Review has been approved by the steering group and will be published in 2008
after taking into account the feedback received during the consultation period. Once published
the RWP 1st Review will become a strategic framework for the preparation of Local
Development Plans and a material consideration in the development control process.
3.4.8 The RWP 1st Review contains two separate main elements:
The ‘RWP Technology Strategy’ – which provides strategic information on the types of waste
management / resource recovery facilities required in South East Wales; and
The ‘RWP Spatial Strategy’ – which provides strategic information on the types of locations
likely to be acceptable.
3.4.9 During the review process, the original data and assumptions have been re-visited, and the
consultation draft document concluded that there is no single best technological option for
residual waste treatment, and ‘the best performing seven sub-options in the Sustainability
Appraisal are presented for consultation as alternative RWP Waste Technology Strategies
that would enable South East Wales to meet or exceed legislative targets’.
3.4.10 These options are:
Sub-Option 2a – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes, where possible, being managed by high levels of pyrolysis;
Sub-Option 2c – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes, where possible, being managed by high levels incineration with energy
recovery;
Sub-Option 3a – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes being managed by Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by pyrolysis;
Sub-Option 3b – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes being managed by Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by gasification;
Sub-Option 3c – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes being managed by Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by
incineration;
Sub-Option 3d – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes being managed by Mechanical Biological Treatment followed by Refuse
Derived Fuel to off-site energy use; and
Sub-Option 4d – High source segregated recycling and composting levels with all remaining
residual wastes being managed by autoclave followed by Refuse Derived Fuel to offsite
energy use.
32
3.4.11 Through development of the RWP Spatial Strategy, the 1st Review also proposes sites which
may be suitable for waste development. These are:
Estimates of the total land area required for new in-building facilities, an analysis of the
potentially available land area for new in-building facilities on existing B2 or major industry
sites and B2 sites that have already been allocated in development plans, and a list of these
sites; and
‘Areas of Search’ maps for use in identifying new sites for in-building and open-air facilities.
3.4.12 The following 4 supporting documents accompany the Plan and were an integral part of the
consultation:
‘Sustainability Appraisal & Life Cycle Analysis of the Strategic Waste Management Options’
(EAW, 2007);
‘Identifying Areas of Search for Regional Waste Facilities in Wales’ – includes an
Environmental Report (RPS, 2007);
‘Environmental Report of the Strategic Waste Management Options’ (Hyder, 2007); and
‘Consultation Draft Health Impact Assessment’ (Peter Brett Associates, 2007).
3.4.13 Monitoring the South East Wales Regional Waste Plan
3.4.14 The South East Wales Regional Waste Group undertakes work to monitor the implementation
of the plan and the waste situation within the region. Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) are
published in March and include details of the region’s waste arising, recovery and disposal
and Information on the region’s waste management / resource recovery.
3.4.15 Local Development Plans
3.4.16 The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 required each local planning authority in Wales to
prepare a Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for its administrative area.
3.4.17 Under Part 6 (The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) of the new Planning Act,
local planning authorities are now required to prepare and maintain up to date development
plans which are to be called local development plans (LDPs).
3.4.18 LDPs will be simpler, more concise documents than the present UDPs and will focus on the
local planning authority’s objectives for the use and development of land in their area, and
their general policies for implementing them. Specific allocations will be necessary to ensure
that development needs are suitably met. There will be scope for more detailed policies
(including site specific proposals) in key localities where they are warranted. There will not be
a Part I/Part II split as was required for UDPs. There will however be a requirement for a
proposals map. LDPs will need to be informed by a sustainability appraisal (Strategic
Environmental Assessment).
3.4.19 Each partner authority has an adopted UDP, with waste specific policies, which will remain
current until the LDP is adopted. The UDP waste policies are summarised in Table 3.4 and
Appendix 3b.
33
Table 3.4 UDP waste Policy Summaries

Authority Comment
Vale of With regard to the determination of proposals for new waste facilities under the
Glamorgan existing adopted Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011. In the
first instance proposals would be assessed against the suitability of its location,
with Policy WAST1 favouring extensions to existing waste sites, on existing or
allocated B2 and B8 employment sites, operational mineral working sites and in
relation to green waste composting within or adjacent to existing farm complexes.
Where proposals satisfy this policy, the suitability of the proposal will also need to
satisfy the criteria set out it policy WAST2. This considers issues such as impact
on residential amenity, public health issues, highway conditions etc. In addition the
UDP indicates that in the first instance the suitability of any proposal will be
determined against its contribution towards the Regional Waste Plan.
In relation to the LDP, the Council's timetable for adoption is currently:

Pre deposit consultation (completed January-February 2008)
Deposit Plan consultation- January-February 2009
Public Inquiry- December 2009
Adoption- January 2011
Cardiff In September 2007 the Executive approved a Preferred Strategy for the Cardiff
LDP. Consultation took place between 16 October and 27 November 2007.
Responses to consultation were reported to the Executive on 6th March 2008 with
a recommendation for the Executive to consider the need to review the LDP
Strategy following completion of the Strategic Opportunities Areas Study.
The Executive considered it appropriate for the Council to await completion of that
study prior to determining how to proceed with the LDP. The Strategic
Opportunities Areas Study Report is due May /June 2008. If the Executive is
minded to progress the current LDP Strategy a full draft plan could be placed on
deposit by late 2008.
Prior to the adoption of an LDP for Cardiff the extant adopted and approved
development plans for Cardiff will remain the statutory development plan for
assessing planning applications until formal adoption of the new LDP.
These are
City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996),
South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (1997),
South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Minerals Local Plan 1997)
Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1
(September 1989) in respect of the Pentyrch community.
Together with 'Locating Waste Management Facilities' Supplementary Planning
Guidance (approved September 2006)
In addition, draft guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government in respect

of LDPs indicates that where a UDP has been placed on deposit it may remain a
consideration in development control decisions until such time as an LDP has been
placed on deposit.
Caerphilly The Caerphilly Local Development Plan (LDP)
34
Authority Comment
The Council is required to prepare a development plan for its area containing its
over-arching land-use proposals for the fifteen year plan period. The current
development plan is the Caerphilly Council Approved Unitary Development Plan
(CAUDP) 1996-2011, which will be replaced by the LDP covering the period 2006-
21 now under preparation. The first main consultation stage of the plan
preparation process is on the Preferred Strategy, and this was carried out in
April/May 2007. The representations received will be taken into account in the
preparation of the Deposit LDP, which will be the subject of public consultation in
Autumn 2008. The timetable for the preparation of the LDP agreed with the
Assembly Government will lead to the adoption of the Caerphilly LDP in August
2010.
The Preferred Strategy
The Preferred Strategy represents a combination of the best elements of the

alternative strategies discussed with key stakeholders.
There are eight ‘strands’ or themes identified by key stakeholders that have formed
the basis for the strategy:
1 Allow for development opportunities in the North.

2 Promote a balanced approach to managing future growth.
3 Exploit brown field opportunities where appropriate.
4 Promote resource efficient settlement patterns.
5 Ensure that development provides the necessary infrastructure improvements.
6 Ensure development provides the necessary community facilities.
7 Reduce the impact of development upon the countryside.
8 Target development to reflect the roles and functions of individual settlements.
The overall strategy that emerges from these eight strands can be summarised as
follows:
The development of new housing will be encouraged in former mining villages
that currently have a poor choice of property types and lack modern residential
development.
Major housing growth however, will be concentrated in those settlements with
good public transport facilities and in particular, bearing in mind regional
commuting patterns, those with access to a railway station.
Employment growth will be focused on the town of Caerphilly, whose proximity
to Cardiff presents particular opportunities, and in the Northern Connections
Corridor, particularly on sites in the mid valleys conurbation. New sites will be
identified close to railway stations, to encourage two-way commuting on the rail
network.
Retail, leisure, health, training and other urban facilities will also be
concentrated in the two principal hubs - Caerphilly town and the mid valleys
conurbation. Some specialist facilities will be developed in the key peripheral
towns of Rhymney, Nelson, Bedwas and greater Risca.
The Mid Valleys Conurbation of Ystrad Mynach / Blackwood /Bargoed
/Newbridge should play a central role in the regeneration of the Valleys due to
its strategic location and critical mass of 65,000 people. For this to occur
sustainably, an integrated public transport network needs to be developed for
the Conurbation.
The countryside will be protected and promoted as a positive asset for
recreation and tourism, with particular regard to the contribution the county
35
Authority Comment
borough can make to the Valleys Regional Park.

Areas of Search for the location of waste treatment and recycling facilities will
be identified throughout the county borough.
The Council is presently examining which areas in the county borough, if any,
should be safeguarded for minerals.
Newport Newport has an adopted UDP (the Newport Unitary Development Plan 1996 -
2011) and therefore any planning applications will be determined in the light of
that.
Having only adopted the plan relatively recently (May 2006), the council is only at
the beginning of the LDP process. Consultation has recently been undertaken on
the draft Delivery Agreement, and a revised version will shortly be submitted to the
Welsh Assembly Government for the approval necessary for formal
commencement. The revised Delivery Agreement is likely to envisage adoption of
the LDP in late 2012.
Monmouthshire The LDP timetable is to produce a Preferred Strategy for consultation by January
2009 and a Deposit Plan for consultation by January 2010. The date for
submission to the Assembly Government is November 2010. It is estimated that
the public hearing and inspector's report should take about 12 months. This would
give an adoption date of November 2011.
In the meantime, waste management proposals would be assessed against

policies in our Unitary Development Plan, which was adopted in June 2006. The
relevant policy is Policy W9, which states:
Proposals for waste management facilities, except those involving the final deposit
of waste on land at the site or open windrow composting, will be permitted within
industrial sites (Class B2 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order
1987).
Where such proposals cannot be accommodated on existing or proposed Class B2

industrial sites they will be permitted provided that all the following conditions are
met:
the proposed site is within or adjoining development boundaries of towns and
other main settlements or existing and proposed industrial/business sites; and
there is a demonstrable need for the type and scale of development in that
location.
All proposals for waste management facilities should also comply with detailed
planning considerations and the following criteria:
where energy is recovered as part of the waste management process the
means of access to the appropriate national grid or identified end user is
demonstrated;
where appropriate, maximum possible use is made of non-road transportation
for the receipt of the waste arising and the distribution of the output products;
there is no processing and no substantial storage of waste material in the open
air; and
the proposals are compatible with adjoining land uses.
36
3.5 Summary
3.5.1 This is a vital time for both waste and planning strategies in Wales; The National Strategy is
currently under review with the Assembly Government indicating an ambitious stance on
recycling and composting, Planning Authorities are “work in progress” with Local Development
Plans which will shape land use and future development, and the First Review of the SE
Wales Regional Waste Plan is set to change its direction on the technical and spatial strategy
for waste facilities in the region.
3.5.2 The Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership is the ideal vehicle to provide an integrated approach,
building on the work of individual authorities whilst providing the scale to ensure national
objectives and targets are delivered. The initial focus of the Partnership is residual waste
treatment which is likely to deliver at least one major treatment / disposal facility, however
subject to approvals the project may include requirements for the development of additional
infrastructure in future years to treat other municipal waste, for example that which the partner
authorities collect as source separated recyclables or organics.
3.5.3 The agreed scope of Prosiect Gwyrdd is to treat a proportion of residual waste arising from
each authority’s MSW after source-segregated recycling and composting has taken place.
The scope of the project is in line with the new targets currently being proposed by the
Assembly Government, reflecting high recycling and composting levels and limitations on the
level of thermal treatment. Prosiect Gwyrdd will deal with residual waste amounting to
approximately 35% of MSW arising; the remainder will be managed locally by each authority
through its own collection and disposal arrangements.
37
Section 4: Procurement Strategy and Reference Project
4.1 Introduction
This section sets out the rationale underpinning the Partnership’s procurement strategy; outlines the
proposed Output Specification for the project; details the Partnership’s approach to determining the
long list of technology options; identifies the steps the Partnership is taking to mitigate its potential
LAS exposure in the “interim” years; and sets out the results of the appraisal of the short listed
technology options to define the example technology for the Reference Project.
4.1.1 Legal Context – Procurement
4.1.2 The partner Authorities recognise that this project will be subject to procurement under the EU
public procurement regime pursuant to the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/5) (as
amended) using the competitive dialogue procedure. Under the regulations the procurement
process will be substantially as set out below:
A contract notice will be placed in the Official Journal of the European Union ("OJEU") to invite
expressions of interest from interested bidders;
Each bidder will be invited to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire ("PQQ"). The PQQ
will be supported by a Descriptive Document to inform potential bidders of the scope and
nature of the project;
The PQQ submissions received from interested bidders will be evaluated in terms of economic
and financial standing and technical capacity etc. to create a long list of prospective bidders;
The prospective bidders will commence the competitive dialogue phase in parallel discussions
with the partner Authorities by receiving an Invitation to Submit Outline Solutions ("ISOS")
(with an accompanying preliminary draft Output Specification). The ISOS submissions will
focus on each bidders technical solution;
The ISOS submissions will be evaluated and the remaining bidders will move on to the
Invitation to Submit Detailed Solutions ("ISDS") stage where they will be furnished with a full
suite of contractual documents, including comprehensive drafts of the Project Agreement,
Output Specification and Payment Mechanism;
The bidders will continue, in dialogue with the partner Authorities, to explore their commercial
positions and resolve commercial issues in order to prepare their ISDS bid submissions;
At this stage the partner Authorities may elect to deselect bidders but after ISDS bid
evaluations the dialogue will continue until the partner Authorities are satisfied that there are
no major commercial issues remaining. If required at this stage, the partner Authorities will
issue an Invitation to Submit Refined Solutions ("ISRS");
The partner Authorities will conduct an Assessment of Readiness to Close Dialogue ("ARCD")
and subject to approval will issue a call for Final Tenders ("FT");
Upon receipt of the FTs the partner Authorities will conduct a final evaluation, which may
involve further fine tuning and clarification from the bidders;
Once the partner Authorities are certain that all major commercial views have been agreed
they can then appoint their Preferred Bidder. At this stage, the Preferred Bidder will be
required to confirm its commitments in relation to the project;
Following appointment of the Preferred Bidder, the partner Authorities can move through
formal business case approval to financial close.
38
4.1.3 While this provides a brief outline of the procurement procedure it is important to note that if
the partner Authorities are offered financial support from the Assembly Government, the
process will probably have to facilitate scrutiny similar to that required by DEFRA/ WIDP.
4.1.4 Procurement Strategy
4.1.5 It is the Partnership’s intention to let a residual waste treatment contract for management of up
to 35% of the local authorities’ MSW arising. The service will exclude waste and recyclate
collection, HWRC management, composting, materials recycling facilities and waste transfer.
The service will also exclude the management of residual waste outside the 35% MSW
arising. The service will include the onward marketing, treatment, transport and disposal of
process outputs and residues.
4.1.6 The Partnership will develop an Output Specification for the project prior to procurement. The
Output Specification will describe only what is required from the contract, leaving the delivery
mechanisms and technology open to the contractor to propose.
4.1.7 Waste managed under the contract will comprise residual waste (remaining after source
segregated recycling) amounting to a maximum of 35% of MSW arising, including:
Household waste;
Commercial wastes as collected by or on behalf of the authorities;
Residual waste from HWRCs;
Litter and refuse from cleansing of public highways, public areas, footpaths, public parks and
similar areas; and
Any waste that the authorities have a statutory duty to accept.
4.1.8 This section sets out the rationale for the procurement strategy of Prosiect Gwyrdd and
outlines the proposed Output Specification for the project. Details of the technical options
appraisal process are set out, and the Reference Project identified.
Overall Strategy for Procurement
4.1.9 The Partnership authorities have agreed to proceed to procurement for residual waste
treatment services for an agreed proportion of the authorities’ combined residual waste.
However, it is recognised that each authority will be responsible for the management and
procurement of associated services required to support the successful delivery of the project.
Such service elements that lie outside Prosiect Gwyrdd include:
Collection of waste and recyclate
Management and operation of household waste recycling centres
Residual waste transfer and transportation
Materials recycling facilities
Green waste composting facilities
Food waste processing facilities
Disposal or treatment capacity for the remainder of the residual waste that lies outside the
project
4.1.10 Each authority has a range of contracts and agreements in place for these services, as
summarised in Section 2. These services will be maintained on a local level, however, the
partner authorities have not ruled out the possibility of joint-procurement in the future.
4.1.11 The scope of the services for the Reference Project is therefore as follows:
39
Residual waste treatment facility – design, build, finance and operate a waste treatment facility
or facilities to treat a defined proportion of residual waste such that BMW is diverted from
landfill in accordance with performance standards;
Haulage – haulage of rejects, process residues and recovered materials from the treatment
facility to end users and appropriate disposal facilities; and
Disposal – disposal of rejects and process residues from the treatment facility to appropriate
facilities.
4.1.12 In order to mitigate the authorities’ potential LAS exposure in the years prior to the operational
date of the treatment facility, each authority is developing its own plans to:
Increase its source-segregation of materials for recycling, recovery and composting in

accordance with higher targets being proposed by the Assembly Government; and
Arrange or retain its own interim disposal contracts for residual waste.
4.2 Output Specification for the Project

4.2.1 Overall Service Objectives
4.2.2 The fundamental objective of the service is the provision of a facility or facilities to treat
contract waste in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. The service will:
Enable the authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, Section 51(1) as amended;
Assist the authorities in meeting their BMW diversion targets, as set out in the Waste and
Emissions Trading Act 2003;
Meet or exceed the contract targets for landfill diversion;
Assist in delivering the objectives of the authorities Municipal Waste Management Strategies;
Comply with all relevant legislation including any additional foreseeable legislative
requirements set out in EU Directives, particularly those that are applicable to waste
management activities;
Seek to maximise the opportunities for progressive technological improvement and continuous
improvement of the service;
Maximise flexibility to take into account changing circumstances, including changes in waste
quantity and composition; and
Provide an opportunity to manage sustainably commercial and industrial waste in the
Partnership area without detrimentally affecting the service provided to the Partnership.
4.2.3 Scope of the service
4.2.4 The main elements of the Output Specification will include requirements for the contractor to:
Finance, design, build, operate and maintain contract waste delivery points and treatment
facilities;
Receive and accept contract waste delivered by the authorities, or arising from HWRCs, at
delivery points, in accordance with specified requirements;
Direct the flow of contract waste to treatment or disposal, as required;
Process contract waste to achieve specified levels of recycling, recovery and diversion of
BMW from landfill;
40
Market any recyclate, energy or other recovered products arising from the processing of
contract waste, including its transportation;
Manage, transport and dispose of residues from treatment or processing of contract waste;
Dispose of contract waste which is not treated;
Provide suitable contingency arrangements in the event of any unavailability of any part of the
service in order to provide a continuous service;
Provide arrangements for service commencement, and for the expiry or early termination of
the service;
Conduct the works and service in accordance with health, safety and environmental
obligations; and
Work with the Partnership to promote waste awareness, education and waste minimisation
campaigns.
4.2.5 The Output Specification will also define the obligations of the Partnership authorities in terms
of recycling, tonnage, composition and delivery arrangements for residual waste.
4.2.6 The contract period will be for a term of approximately 25 years with a target date for full
operation by the end of March 2014.
4.2.7 Performance Monitoring
4.2.8 A performance mechanism will be developed in line with the Output Specification and
Payment Mechanism, designed to ensure good performance by the contractor and to
encourage continuous improvement for service delivery, and include payment deductions
where certain performance targets are not met. A set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
will be developed to implement the performance mechanism. The KPIs will be developed to
ensure that they manage the fundamental aspects of the contract, as well as ensuring
flexibility to adapt to changes over the life of the contract.
4.2.9 The KPIs are likely to include:
Availability of delivery points;

Availability of treatment facilities;
BMW diversion performance of treatment facilities;
Secondary recycling performance levels;
Landfill diversion performance at treatment facilities;
Energy efficiency of treatment facilities;
Vehicle turnaround times for waste delivery vehicles;
Environmental, health and safety performance; and
Compliance with Service Delivery Plans
4.3 Long Listing of Technology Options

4.3.1 Identification of Options
4.3.2 The Partnership has considered a wide range of technology options in the development of its
procurement strategy. In order to determine the example reference technology for the project
for the procurement, a long list of options was developed, consolidated into a shorter list, and
assessed against a pre-agreed evaluation framework, as set out below.
4.3.3 The Partnership has identified a long list of technology options, as follows:
41
Table 4.1 Long List of Technology Options

1 Landfill
2 Bottom ash recycling
No energy recovery
3 No bottom ash recycling
One large incinerator Power and heat recovery
Power recovery only
No energy recovery
10 Two incinerators (at different Bottom ash recycling
Power and heat recovery
11 locations) No bottom ash recycling
Power recovery only
14 Gasification
15 Pyrolysis
16 On-site combustion of RDF
Off-site combustion of RDF
17 Configured to produce RDF (through a Prosiect Gwyrdd
as primary output facility)
RDF managed by open
18
MBT / BMT market
19 Configured to produce CLO to landfill
‘compost-like output’ (CLO)
20 as primary product CLO spread to land
21 Mixed waste anaerobic Digestate to landfill
22 digestion Digestate spread to land
23 On-site combustion of floc product
Mechanical heat treatment Off-site combustion of floc product (through a Prosiect
24
(autoclave) Gwyrdd facility)
25 Floc managed by open market
26 Overseas
Export residual waste
27 To UK merchant facility
4.3.4 All technology options are to be applied to residual waste from the authorities, amounting to a
maximum of 35% of MSW arising, after achievement of the high source segregated recycling
and composting levels currently being proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government, in
accordance with the agreed project scope.
42
4.3.5 Details of Evaluation criteria
4.3.6 The Partnership has agreed a comprehensive set of evaluation criteria to apply to this options
appraisal, with the view that similar criteria would apply for tender evaluation during the
procurement phase of the project, with some adjustments. These criteria and their respective
weightings are:
Table 4.2 Evaluation Criteria and Weightings

Criteria Weighting
Carbon footprint 10%
Total cost, expressed as NPV 40%
Proven on MSW 10%
Bankability Pass / fail
Flexibility / adaptability to changes in legislation 5%
Flexibility / adaptability to changes in waste composition 5%
Adaptability to changes in waste quantity 5%
Availability of end markets 5%
BMW diversion performance 5%
Contribution to recycling / composting targets 5%
Likelihood of planning permission 10%
4.3.7 Appraisal of Long List
4.3.8 A high level assessment has been made of the long list of options in order to develop a short
list for detailed evaluation. This assessment has been made through a ‘reality check’ on what
is reasonable and deliverable, and in consideration of the pass / fail criterion of bankability.
The following summarises the options discounted at this stage:
Incineration with no energy recovery – not politically or publicly acceptable for new
facilities.
Incineration with power recovery only – it will be difficult to cost CHP at OBC stage, but the
assessment will recognise the advantages of CHP over power recovery only. For the options
appraisal we will be evaluating options for power recovery only, on the basis that CHP would
score higher.
Gasification – not proven on mixed MSW, not considered bankable at present.
Pyrolysis – not proven on mixed MSW, not considered bankable at present.
MBT with RDF managed by the open market – the partnership is not willing to take the risk
of RDF markets. During the procurement stage, this option may be re-considered providing
the contractor is willing to take the risk of securing and delivering RDF markets.
MBT with ‘compost-like output’ disposed to landfill – will exceed the Assembly
Government’s proposed maximum limit on waste to landfill.
MBT with ‘compost-like output’ spread on land – unlikely to be acceptable due to the
Assembly Government policy on MBT outputs.
43
MBT / mixed waste anaerobic digestion with digestate disposed to landfill – will exceed
The Assembly Government’s proposed maximum limit on waste to landfill.
MBT / mixed waste anaerobic digestion with digestate spread on land – unlikely to be
acceptable due to the Assembly Government policy on MBT outputs.
Mechanical heat treatment – not currently bankable and not proven at the scale of Prosiect
Gwyrdd
Export of waste overseas – not politically acceptable.
Export of waste to a UK merchant facility – this is a procurement route issue rather than a
technical option.
4.3.9 The resulting short list of options for detailed evaluation is:
1 Landfill – as a baseline for comparison

2a One large energy from waste plant, with power and heat recovery, bottom ash
recycling
2b One large energy from waste plant, with power and heat recovery, no bottom ash
recycling
3a Two energy from waste plant (at different locations), with power and heat recovery,
bottom ash recycling
3b Two energy from waste plant (at different locations), with power and heat recovery, no
4a MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect
Gwyrdd facilities on the same site
4b MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect
Gwyrdd facilities on another site
4.3.10 All options include high levels of source segregated recycling and composting prior to residual
waste treatment.
4.3.11 The process followed to identify the long and short list of options and the evaluation criteria is
documented in Appendix 4a.
4.4 Appraisal of Short-listed Options to Identify Example Reference

Technology
4.4.1 Waste Modelling
4.4.2 Detailed waste flow modelling has been carried out to inform the options appraisal and to
determine the performance and treatment capacity requirements for each option. The waste
flow modelling takes into account waste growth projections, source segregated recycling and
composting and residual waste treatment and disposal, calculating recycling and recovery
rates and BMW diversion on a yearly basis. This allows the performance of each option to be
compared, and forms the basis for modelling the costs and carbon footprint of each option.
Appendix , Technical Assumptions (document redacted. The Information has been redacted
as it relates to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with
Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.), gives detail on the waste flow
modelling for each of the options under consideration, and the assumptions used.
4.4.3 The figure below shows the MSW growth projections, along with the BMW content and LAS
allocations for the Partnership. This indicates that, to meet the combined LAS allowances as
a whole, the Partnership needs to divert around 196,000 tonnes of BMW from landfill by
2012/13, 252,000 tonnes by 2019/20 and potentially 284,000 tonnes by 2035/36. These
tonnages are based on waste growth forecasts from data currently available, and figures may
44
vary depending on future changes in waste growth. Furthermore, the figures are based on
meeting a combined LAS allowance for the Partnership; this is an artificial position as ‘pooling’
of LAS allowances is currently not permitted by the Welsh Assembly Government.
45
Figure 4.1 Waste Growths and Combined LAS Allowances
BMW Content Total MSW Arisings Combined LAS Allocations
700,000
600,000
500,000
284,000 tonnes
400,000
Tonnes
252,000 tonnes
196,000 tonnes
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
14
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
4.4.4 Figure 4.2 below shows the BMW remaining in the residual waste after high levels of source
segregated recycling and composting have been achieved. It can be seen that at these
levels, the Partnership authorities (combined) are not exposed to any shortfall against their
LAS allowances. This is consistent with the work carried out by the Assembly Government to
support its proposals for high levels of recycling and composting. The figures in the chart
below are based on assumptions around the quantity of materials that may be collected by
each authority; in practice this may vary.
Figure 4.2 BMW remaining in the residual waste after ‘High Recycling’
BMW residual waste Combined LAS target BMW Arisings in MSW
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
Tonnes BMW
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
46
4.4.5 The scope of the project is to manage up to 35% of total MSW arising through Prosiect
Gwyrdd, with each authority working to meet the high recycling and composting targets being
proposed by the Assembly Government, up to a rate of 65% (excluding inerts) in 2024/25.
This means that Prosiect Gwyrdd will only manage a proportion of residual waste, particularly
in the early years when recycling and composting levels are lower, as shown in the following
chart. It can be seen that the project will manage around 200,000tpa residual waste.
Figure 4.3 Residual Waste Treatment Levels
Total Residual Waste MSW Arisings Residual Waste Treated
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
Tonnes
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
14
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
4.4.6 Facilities
4.4.7 The facilities required for Prosiect Gwyrdd are residual waste management facilities only.
Associated infrastructure, such as waste transfer stations, lies outside the project and will be
the responsibility of each local authority to provide. Other waste management infrastructure,
such as composting facilities, Materials Recycling Facilities and Household Waste Recycling
Centres, is also outside Prosiect Gwyrdd and is not considered in this business case.
4.4.8 The facilities, capacity and nominal cost (excluding land acquisition) for each option is
summarised in the table below:
47
Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
Table 4.3 The facilities, capacity and nominal cost Summary

Nominal capital cost (at
Option Facility Capacity
April 2007)
1 Landfill Approx 200,000tpa XXX
2a & 2b Energy from Waste 1 x 220,000tpa £XXX
3a & 3b Energy from Waste 2 x 110,000tpa £XXX
Mechanical Biological Treatment 1 x 220,000tpa £XXX

4a & 4b
RDF combustion 1 x 110,000tpa £XXX
4.4.9 In addition, the following landfill capacity will be required for disposal of process rejects and
non-recycled bottom ash:
Table 4.4 landfill capacity required for disposal of process rejects

Approx disposal
Option Reject stream
capacity required
Material rejected prior to thermal stage 36,500tpa
2a & 3a
Air Pollution control residues (hazardous) 6,300tpa
Material rejected prior to thermal stage 36,500tpa
2b & 3b Air Pollution control residues (hazardous) 6,300tpa
Bottom ash 33,300tpa
Process rejects, including organic output 47,100tpa
4a & 4b
Air Pollution control residues from RDF combustion (hazardous) 4,400tpa
4.4.10 Furthermore, landfill capacity will be required for residual waste not managed by Prosiect
Gwyrdd.
4.4.11 Appendix 4b (Technical Assumptions – document redacted -the Information has been
redacted as it relates to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.) summarises other
cost and performance characteristics of the various options. The base assumptions for the
options appraisal are based on the facilities being fully operational by April 2014; the effect of
this has been tested.
4.4.12 Performance of the Short Listed Options
4.4.13 Each of the short listed options has been evaluated in detail against the agreed set of criteria.
Full details of the evaluation are presented in Appendix 4c, Options Evaluation.
Recycling
4.4.14 The overall recycling and composting performance of each of the options is governed
principally though the arrangements for source segregated recycling and composting which
are assumed to be the same for each option; the residual waste treatment facilities make a
lesser contribution to recycling.
48
4.4.15 The contributing factors to recycling targets for each option are from the following:
Energy from Waste Metals extracted from bottom ash for recycling
Bottom ash recycled as secondary aggregate
Mechanical Biological Treatment Metals recycled through mechanical treatment

Bottom ash recycled post combustion of RDF
4.4.16 The recycling contribution for each of the options through residual waste treatment is
presented in the table below, as secondary recycling. It has recently (although unofficially)
been suggested by the Assembly Government that bottom ash recycling may count towards
future recycling targets. The figures in the table below are presented inclusive and exclusive
of bottom ash recycling for completeness, with the figures in parentheses representing the
recycling levels if bottom ash is not counted towards targets.
Table 4.5 Recycling Contribution for each of the Options

Recycling contribution (% of MSW arising, excl. inerts)
Option
2015/16 2019/20 2024/25
1 – Landfill - - -
2a – EfW with BA
7.0% (1.8%) 6.6% (1.2%) 6.4% (1.2%)
recycling
2b – EfW with no BA
1.8% 1.2% 1.2%
recycling
3a – Two EfW with BA
7.0% (1.8%) 6.6% (1.2%) 6.4% (1.2%)
recycling
3b – Two EfW with no
1.8% 1.2% 1.2%
BA recycling
4a – MBT with RDF
6.4% (1.8%) 5.7% (1.3%) 5.5% (1.2%)
combusted on-site
4b – MBT with RDF
6.4% (1.8%) 5.7% (1.3%) 5.5% (1.2%)
combusted off-site
4.4.17 The secondary recycling rates are similar for all options where bottom ash is recycled (and
where it is counted as being recycled). The recycling rates reduce slightly in future years as
source segregated recycling increases, which reduces the amount of recyclable material left in
the waste product for further recovery at the treatment facility. However, it is clear that where
bottom ash is recycled, residual waste treatment may be capable of allowing the Partnership
to achieve the 70% recycling and composting target through secondary capture of material.
BMW Diversion
4.4.18 Performance of the options has also been assessed in terms of the diversion of BMW from
landfill. Since all options are LAS-compliant as a result of high levels of diversion through
recycling and composting, the figures presented in the table below are expressed as ‘tonnes
of BMW diverted through treatment’ rather than a comparison based on performance against
LAS.
49
Table 4.6 BMW diversion through treatment

BMW diversion through treatment (tonnes)
Option
2015/16 2019/20 2024/25
1 – Landfill - - -
2a – EfW with BA
68,000 62,400 61,000
recycling
2b – EfW with no BA
68,000 62,400 61,000
recycling
3a – Two EfW with BA
68,000 62,400 61,000
recycling
3b – Two EfW with no
68,000 62,400 61,000
BA recycling
4a – MBT with RDF
67,700 62,700 61,400
combusted on-site
4b – MBT with RDF
67,700 62,700 61,400
combusted off-site
4.4.19 Again, it is clear that there is little difference between the performance standards of the
various options. The MBT options perform slightly better than EfW in later years due to
changes in the residual waste composition. MBT rejects are assumed to have undergone
some stabilisation, whereas EfW rejects are not. BMW diversion performance is calculated
according to the Environment Agency’s mass balance approach, with reasonable assumptions
on the level of BMW stabilisation.
4.4.20 Economic appraisal of the short listed options
4.4.21 This section sets out the results of the economic cost appraisal of the short listed technology
options vs. the cost to the Partnership of its high recycling and composting and landfill
("landfill") option.
4.4.22 The economic cost analysis was designed to compare the relative costs of the short listed
technical options by ranking them in terms of the Net Present Value (NPV) of each option's
estimated cash flows. A Net Present Value calculation discounts cash flows back to a
common base date using a common discount rate.
4.4.23 The key assumptions made in the Economic Model were:

NPVs have been calculated over 29 years. This period represents the assumed time required
to gain planning permission and build (4 years) the technology solution and the anticipated 25
year concession period of a Design Build Finance Operate and Maintain (DBFOM) contract
used to deliver it. The NPVs of all of the different options have been calculated over the same
period for consistency.
The NPV calculation discounts cashflows back to a common base date of April 2007 using a
common discount rate.
The cashflows in the model are in nominal terms and the discount rate used for the NPV
calculations is the nominal rate 6.087%, which is based on the real rate of 3.5% and an
assumed rate for RPI of 2.5%. This is in accordance with the Green Book guidance.
4.4.24 The technical and cost assumptions relating to each of the options were provided by the
Partnership's advisors and are shown in Appendix 4b (document redacted. The Information
has been redacted as it relates to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others
in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.).
50
4.4.25 It should be noted that the cost information used in the model excludes a number of other
costs that will be incurred if a treatment plants is built, such as design costs, planning
permission, permit application costs and other costs relating to the procurement option used to
deliver the plant. Financing costs are also excluded. These costs are modelled by the financial
advisers with respect to the Reference Project and reported in Chapter 8.
4.4.26 The indicative results of the cost analysis for each technology option under the assumed
waste growth profile, in nominal terms, are summarised in table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7 Cost analysis for each option
4.4.27 As it is not possible to remove a number of inherent uncertainties behind the assumptions that
drive the NPV figures used in the economic appraisal, in line with Defra and 4Ps guidance, a
sensitivity analysis was also carried out to test the robustness of the ranking of options
generated by the economic appraisal. Details on the sensitivities and their results are in
Appendix 8g.
4.4.28 The results of the sensitivity analysis for each option are summarised in table 4.8 below:
Table 4.8 Sensitivity Analyses Outcomes
51
4.4.29 The results show that three of the technology options modelled consistently outrank the
"Landfill" option and that this is the case even if the front end recycling and composting
diversion rates drop to 58% and 50% as demonstrated by sensitivities 16 and 17.
52
4.5 Bankability
4.5.1 To be successful, a particular waste management solution depends on the successful
development and commercial delivery of individual capital projects. For a project to be
delivered, there are a number of requirements, not least of which are:
Planning permission for the facility;
Operating licences or permits;
Contractors and equipment providers who are able to deliver the hardware and put it to work;
and
The capital finance required to pay for it.
4.5.2 There is a wide range of waste processing technologies; both ‘established’ and ‘new’ that can
contribute to the diversion of BMW away from landfill disposal. Indeed, the word ‘new’
encompasses a wide range of technical maturity, ranging from technologies that have yet to
pass beyond the pilot or bench-scale, to those that have seen widespread commercial
application, but on feed-stocks other than ‘typical’ UK MSW.
4.5.3 The more established technologies include mechanical processing technologies, such as
magnetic separators, eddy current separators, pulverisers and screens. Such technologies
separate and sort mixed waste streams into different component parts. In addition, there are
numerous waste combustion technologies that have long track records of successful
commercial operation, including grate-based combustion plant, rotating or oscillating kilns, and
fluidised beds. In each of these technologies, however, any one specific application may have
some degree of novelty – for instance a fluidised bed combustion technology may have seen
application on one particular type of waste stream, but may be commercially untested on
another. Any project development process must, therefore, carefully consider not only the
level of ‘novelty’ in a particular technology, but also how the technology is to be applied, in
order to identify project-specific technical risks.
4.5.4 The "bankability" of technologies refers to the ease with which the technology is able to secure
project finance bank funding and reflects the confidence that lenders have in the ability and
reliability of the technologies in question. With respect to technology supply, the most notable
features of a bankable process are:
Robustness and security of financial projections (capital costs, operating and maintenance
costs, and revenues);
The technology supplier/contractor’s ability to warrant performance and provide necessary
guaranties and financial cover for performance failure; and
Technology track record.
4.5.5 The size, financial position and experience of the contractor and technology supplier are
important in determining whether a particular project will be delivered on time, to budget and
to specification. More importantly, however, these factors are absolutely critical in determining
whether unanticipated technology problems that might arise during the project will be
resolved.
4.5.6 In all cases involving the mitigation of risk through a contractual relationship with a third party,
banks will be very careful to ensure the counter-party is sufficiently robust to meet its
obligations under the contract. This tends to count against those smaller providers of
relatively novel technologies that cannot draw on their own balance sheet to provide bankable
corporate completion and performance undertakings.
53
4.5.7 Technology track record is critical to providing confidence to the investors that the
performance projections on which the financial model is based are achievable. Lenders
usually require seeing at least 24 months of successful operating history (throughput and plant
reliability) for any technology in order to demonstrate that key financial model assumptions
such as waste processing rate and availability can be achieved.
4.5.8 With respect to thermal treatment in particular, it can be noted that, to date, there are no
examples of any projects using advanced thermal technologies in the UK that have
successfully secured significant debt finance, although there is much work being done to
encourage their uptake.
4.5.9 In summary, the ‘bankability’ of the various waste technology solutions has been a key
consideration of the Partnership's options appraisal, and a detailed review of existing facilities
has been undertaken to establish the track record of each technology. The current evidence
base suggests that conventional EfW technologies are the most bankable, with the longest
track record and therefore a greater degree of confidence on the performance and costs
associated with these technologies. This review of the bankability of different residual waste
treatment technology "families" the Partnership has undertaken is provided in Appendix 4d.
4.6 Carbon Footprint

4.6.1 Each technology option and landfill disposal has been evaluated according to its carbon
footprint. The Environment Agency’s WRATE tool has been used to determine the carbon
footprint of each option, expressed as global warming potential, in units of tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalents (tCO2 equiv.).
4.6.2 All aspects of the residual waste treatment are taken into account including:
Transport to the facility or landfill;

Construction & operation of the facility;
Transport of process outputs from the facility to markets or disposal; and
Fate of process outputs.
4.6.3 The full WRATE carbon footprint assessment is described in Appendix 4e Carbon Footprint
Assessment, and summarised below. The larger the figure, the greater the carbon footprint.
A negative figure shows a relative reduction in global warming potential. The last column in
the table gives an indication of the equivalent number of typical European people it would take
to contribute this level of global warming potential from going about their normal daily
business.
54
Table 4.9 Carbon Footprint Summary for each Option

Carbon Footprint – tCO2 eq
Option Transport – Transport –
European
delivery to process Recycling Disposal Facility Total
Person Eq
facility outputs
1) Landfill 1,168 0 0 37,642 0 39,810 3,806
2a) 1 large
(220ktpa)
927 1,565 -8,191 4,856 15,013 14,170 1,127
EfW with
bottom ash
recycling
2b) 1 large
(220ktpa)
927 2,259 -9,322 5,015 15,013 13,891 1,105
EfW with no
bottom ash
recycling
3a) 2
smaller
(2x110ktpa) 927 1,565 -8,191 4,856 15,013 14,171 1,127
EfW with
bottom ash
recycling
3b) 2
smaller
(2x110ktpa) 927 2,260 -9,322 5,015 15,013 13,892 1,105
EfW with no
bottom ash
recycling
4a) MBT
with RDF 927 1,590 -18,877 9,983 27,911 21,534 1,712
combusted
on-site
4b) MBT
with RDF
combusted
927 3,365 -18,877 9,983 27,911 23,310 1,853
on another
site (under
Prosiect
Gwyrdd)
4.6.4 The results show that the use of landfill as the prime method for managing residual waste
generates the highest carbon impact due to the high impacts associated with landfilling of
wastes.
4.6.5 The Energy from Waste options offer significant carbon savings in comparison to landfill
alone. This is attributed to positive impacts of recycling metals from bottom ash and lower
55
quantities of waste sent landfill. These savings are balanced by the negative impacts of
additional transport and construction and operation of EfW facilities.
4.6.6 The MBT options again offer carbon savings in comparison to landfill alone, although not of
the order of the EfW options. Considerable savings are made through the recycling of metals
in the MBT process. However, this is significantly affected by the intensity of operating two
treatment facilities, higher quantities of process outputs to landfill and, in the case of option 4b
additional transport to an off site RDF combustion facility.
4.6.7 Other Evaluation Issues
4.6.8 In addition to the criteria of cost, BMW diversion, recycling performance and carbon footprint,
each of the technology options have been evaluated against other qualitative criteria to
complete the appraisal. These criteria are:
Proven on MSW;
Flexibility to changes in legislation;
Flexibility to changes in waste composition;
Adaptability to changes in waste quantity;
Availability of end markets; and
Likelihood of planning permission.
4.6.9 These criteria and their weightings are set out at the beginning of this section. The evaluation
of each option against these criteria is presented in Appendix 4c Options Evaluation and
summarised in the tables below.
4.6.10 Each option has been scored against these criteria and have been scored from 1 to 5, where
1 is poorly rated against the other options, and 5 is deemed the best performing option relative
to the others.
56
4.6.11 Option Appraisal Summary
4.6.12 The tables below summarise the overall evaluation of each option against all criteria. Further
discussion on the evaluation scores and approach is given in Appendix 4c. The technology
option of one EfW facility with bottom ash being recycled (option 2a) scores the best against
all criteria and this performance is maintained under the sensitivity-testing exercises. This
option is considered deliverable, and therefore has been selected as the reference project for
Prosiect Gwyrdd’s outline business case.
Table 4.10 Options Appraisal Summary


treatment (2019/20)
Planning likelihood
Proven on MSW
2019/20)
Total
Option
Weighting 10% 40% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 100%
Raw scores
1) Landfill 39,810 313.9 5 2 5 3 5 0 0 1
Normalised scores
1) Landfill 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1) Landfill 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 5
4.7 The Reference Project

4.7.1 The Partnership’s current intention is to maintain its ‘technology neutral’ stance for
procurement of residual waste treatment. However, the reference example technology option
from the options appraisal process has emerged as a single Energy from Waste facility (up to
220,000tpa) with bottom ash being recycled. The scale of the facility allows third party waste
to be treated at quantities up to 30,000tpa. This is considered to allow flexibility in the growth
rate of project waste and the level of source segregated recycling and composting that may be
achieved.
4.7.2 The following facilities comprise the Reference Project:
57
Table 4.11 Reference Project Summary

Number of Nominal capital cost (at
Facility Capacity
facilities April 2007)
Land n/a 3ha £XXX
Energy from Waste 1 220,000tpa £XXX
4.7.3 In addition to residual waste treatment facilities, the Prosiect Gwyrdd authorities will need to
invest in waste transfer stations and landfill capacity in order to deliver a robust solution for
management of all residual waste. Furthermore, each authority will need to invest heavily in its
waste collection schemes and Household Waste Recycling Centres in order to achieve the
levels of source segregated recycling being proposed. While these matters lie outside
Prosiect Gwyrdd, their achievement directly impacts the deliverability of the project.
4.7.4 The figure below shows the quantity of MSW that is treated through the reference project, and
the level of BMW that is diverted (from the MSW fraction only, not including third party waste).
Figure 4.4 MSW Treated by the Reference Project

Total Residual Waste BMW Diverted Through Treatment Third Party Waste MSW Arisings MSW Treated
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
Tonnes
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
33
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
4.7.5 The figure below shows the quantities of the various process outputs that would need
managing. These figures represent the outputs associated with treatment of MSW only, and
do not include the outputs associated with the treatment of the additional third party waste,
which would serve to increase these quantities.
58
Figure 4.5 Quantities of Outputs from Residual Treatment

Process Rejects Bottom Ash Metals Recovered APC Residues
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Tonnes
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
40
4
9
2
3
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
59
Section 5: Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual Structures
Section 5: Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual

Structures
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section provides an overview of the Partnership’s approach to the management of risks,
including those in relation to the Partnership and specific project risks associated with
procuring the residual waste contract; an outline of the funding route, project agreement and
other contractual documents, proposed payment mechanism, contract monitoring and Market
process outputs.
5.1.2 Risk Management Framework
5.1.3 The Partner authorities have agreed and implemented a risk management strategy that will
ensure a proactive and consistent approach to both strategic and operational risk relating to
the Project. The Risk Matrix and Register established in Appendix 5a sets out exclusively, the
risks and mitigation of risks to the delivery of the Residual Waste Treatment Project. Key
areas are those risks during the procurement of the Project and contract risks, the register
commences from the development of the Outline Business Case. A risk mitigation strategy
has been applied with a pre- and post-mitigated (residual) risk scoring presented and each
risk has been assigned an owner or owners.
5.1.4 For the purpose of this stage of the project all risks have been considered in one document
including preliminary consideration of allocation for contract risk, however construction and
commissioning and operational risks are all issues that will be dealt with under the contract
based on SoPC4 / PUK. The risk in each case will be agreed by the contractors prior to the
appointment of preferred bidder as embedded in the contract. This will be reflected in the
5.1.5 A summary of the main risks that it is anticipated will be covered in the Project are listed
below:
Financial;
Regulatory;
Procurement;
Design;
Political;
Planning;
Construction & Commissioning;
Operational; and
Environmental.
5.1.6 Risk Identification, Monitoring and Review
5.1.7 Risk workshops have been carried out for all project work-streams with the Project Teams,
Project Board and supporting advisors. Operational and strategic risks have been identified
and assessed for all risk factors of the project so far as is possible at this stage.
5.1.8 The Risk workshops were carried out for the project work streams on the dates shown below:-
Workshop 1: 12 December 2007: Initial listing and review of the types and categories of risks
were listed for further consideration; and
60
Workshop 2: 16 January 2008: agreement was reached on the scoring and mitigation
strategies and to identify project risk and contract risks.
5.1.9 Risks are monitored by the Project Manager on a regular basis (Highlight Reports, Stage
Plans and Stage Reviews) and ad-hoc basis as required, both the project team and Project
Board contribute to the mitigation measures and key stakeholders are kept informed of
relevant changes.
5.1.10 Risk Allocation Matrix & Register
5.1.11 A risk matrix which identifies all of the foreseeable risk associated with the project and which
makes a preliminary risk allocation is annexed at Appendix 5a. The Risk Register shows a
range of project risks which, due to the project forming part of a wider waste strategies for the
project partners also contains risks relating to these wider issues.
Table 5.1 Summary of Project Risk Allocation

Ref Risk Details Residual Risk
Fin 1 Affordability gap cannot be OBC affordability identifies anticipated level of HIGH
bridged due to (a) no funding required and the Assembly
additional funding from the Government and their advisors are being
Assembly Government for engaged in OBC process. Examining all
project and (b) shortfall in funding routes and opportunities. (b) Seeking
Revenue Support Grant agreement with the Assembly Government on
level of RSG at early stage. At this stage,
current anticipated outcome from the Assembly
Government is expected to be October 2008.
Lack of clarity over likely level of support from
the Assembly Government remains a key
project concern.
Fin 4 Cost of tendering process Adherence to procurement timetable. SIGNIFICANT

is prohibitively high for Comprehensive scope of project to be
bidders, resulting in few developed that is attractive to market.
tenders Information Pack and other pre-procurement
preparation to ensure bidding costs for bidders
minimised. Bidders’ Day to be carried out.
Manage through appropriate and considered
management of the Competitive Dialogue
process to allow bidders to effectively manage
such costs.
Fin 26 Potential for High This risk has been considered in the OBC by MODERATE
Recycling Targets not modelling the cost of scenarios to the
being met by one or more Partnership based on 2 different rates of
Authorities recycling and composting being achieved (58%
and 50% recycling and composting). The cost
of both the Reference Project with high
recycling and Do Minimum options has been
modelled under each scenario. The
Procurement Strategy and subsequent
Descriptive Document will be developed to
seek to mitigate and manage the potential
impacts of this risk on the Partnership.
Reg 2 Emerging national waste Close liaison with the Assembly Government MAJOR
61
Ref Risk Details Residual Risk

strategy creates throughout process. Ensure working to current
uncertainty over project guidance and policy. Allow for flexibility in
scope contract structure & specification. Note: this
risk/ cost will be to the Partnership
Proc 1 Delay in procurement Timetable will allow contingency for delays. All SIGNIFICANT
programme means aspects of procurement process will be
contract is late and addressed to identify critical path. Interim
services cannot be solutions will be considered as procurement
provided on time timetable is developed
Plan 1 No suitable sites can be Site identification process follows RWP and MAJOR
identified either by the LDP criteria. Any sites put forward will be
partnership or the assessed in accordance with a Council's
potential market bidders relevant LDP. A site has already been identified
by the market, and there are other potential
sites listed in SEW RWP, investigations for the
partnership are ongoing, further market interest
is known, likelihood is reduced.
Plan 6 Failure to obtain planning Site identification process will follow RWP and SIGNIFICANT
permission LDP. Early planning view will be sought.
Communication strategy will be in place to
inform stakeholders.
5.1.12 All Partner Authorities have agreed that higher recycling and composting targets will require
changes to collection arrangements and increased resources for collection, separation and
residual treatment processes.
5.1.13 There are also benefits that result from the Prosiect Gwyrdd Procurement being independent
of other components of the partner’s waste strategies. It is relatively ‘stand alone’ in its scope
and capable of operating without changes to other waste activities. Even if, for example,
recycling increases are not achieved as quickly as projected, it will be possible to utilise some
surplus capacity of the residual waste treatment facility in the early years of operation.
5.1.14 The Partnership has not yet secured a deliverable site in its control but intends to do so prior
to commencing full procurement and has reviewed planning processes to ensure that a
sufficient number of sites allocated within the RWP are available for market development. As
such planning requirements remain a high risk to the project (this is explained more fully in
Section 7).
5.1.15 In order to manage the risk posed by several combined / interacting factors, further scenario
modelling has been conducted to underpin the base case and our overall risk assessment.
5.1.16 As a result of rigorous preparation, review and approval of the OBC, the risk of failing to
deliver a signed contract is considered to be low. There is evidence of an increasing market
capacity with new entrants to the waste market and considerable interest already shown
through discussions with suppliers.
5.2 Contractual and Funding Options

5.2.1 The Partnership's financial advisor, in conjunction with the Partnership's Legal and Technical
advisors, the Project Team and Steering Group has undertaken an analysis of the different
funding (and consequential contractual) options available to this project. This analysis is
provided as Appendix 5b.
62
5.2.2 This analysis sets out:

The funding options and consequential contractual options available to the project;
The conclusions of the Risk Workshop held on project risks; and
How the key features of the contractual options compare.
5.2.3 The principal contract options considered are:

Service Contract;
Design and Build with a separate Operate and Maintain contract; and
Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the form a Design, Build, Finance and Operate and
Maintain contract (DBFOM).
5.2.4 The funding options that were considered are:

Prudential borrowing;
Project finance;
Grant funding; and
Co-funded projects.
5.2.5 The Project Team and Steering group, guided by the advisors, conducted a detailed risk
assessment of the different project risks and then considered how these risks sit under the
different contractual options.
5.2.6 The analysis of contract and funding options was considered at that time in light of the
following key points:
The provision of new infrastructure for waste treatment, probably as single investment at the
outset of the contract;
The Partnership is focusing on a short list of technologies;
The partnership would consider the potential benefits and risks of prudential borrowing: two of
the Partnership's partners would be prepared to borrow up to 100% of the project's funding
requirement, should it be prove to be value for money to so do but having due regard for the
WIDP consultation paper on utilization of Prudential Borrowing in the Waste Sector
(December 2007); and
The risk transfer position set out in the Risk Matrix.
5.2.7 OGC's guidance states that "the primary consideration in the procurement of construction
projects is the need to obtain best value for money in the whole life of the service or facility.
The design and operation of the facility should maximise the delivery of effective public
services; this is most likely to be achieved through integration of the design, construction,
operation and ongoing maintenance”.
5.2.8 As indicated above, the Partnership has conducted a Risk Workshop which concluded that the
operating and maintenance risks of an Energy from Waste facility are not only significant but
inherently linked to the quality of the design and construction. For this reason, the Partnership
has concluded it will get better value for money if it seeks to enter into a contractual
arrangement that integrates the design, build, operation and maintenance elements of the
proposed new waste treatment facility.
63
5.3 Funding route

5.3.1 Having concluded that the contract to be awarded should integrate the design, build, operation
and maintenance of the proposed new waste treatment facility, the Partnership was left to
assess two final contract options:
An Integrated design, build, operate & maintenance contract, with the Partnership providing
the capital funding for the construction of the facility (Option 1); and
An Integrated design, build, operate & maintenance contract, with the private sector providing
the funding for the Build of the facility (Option 2).
5.3.2 It was agreed that Option 1 is likely to be less costly than Option 2, excluding the cost of risks
due to its funding costs (most likely to be the cost of Prudential Borrowing) being lower than
the private sector's funding costs under Option 2. However, there are very few recent
precedents of the Option 1 type of contract, consequentially, it is difficult to assess how
contractors will price these contracts and in particular, how the timing of the injection of
prudential borrowing funds impact upon the price the contractor charges. As indicated above,
the Partnership has considered the issues relating to funding a major waste treatment facility
utilizing Prudential Borrowing, in light of the draft WIDP Guidance referred to above.
5.3.3 Furthermore, the implications of the cost of the risks retained by the Partnership under Option
1 would also need to be understood. The Partnership has already concluded at its Risk
Workshop, that in light of its preferred allocation of risk as indicated in Risk Matrix and, in
particular, the significant technical risks inherent in the design and build phase, the
Partnership would not seek to provide funding for the facility until it was proven to be capable
of meeting operational requirements.
5.3.4 Based on the above, the Project's Steering Group has concluded that a design, build, finance,
operate and maintain ("DBFOM") contract option is its preferred contract and funding option
for the Project, but that it would explore with the market the potential value for money benefits
of utilising prudential borrowing to contribute to the capital costs of construction once the
treatment facility is capable of meeting operational requirements.
5.4 Project Agreement and Other Contractual Documents

5.4.1 The Contract to be developed for the procurement will adopt SoPC version 4 and the terms
contained within current guidance, in particular with respect to payment mechanism, output
specification, planning and termination.
5.4.2 Project specific issues will need to be addressed in their own right and incorporated into the
project agreement.
5.4.3 Employment drafting will take account of the model clauses currently familiar to the market.
5.4.4 The contract will take into account the recommended position relating to waste specific
derogations in accordance with the DEFRA Guidance issued in May 2006 as the same may
be updated prior to issue of the contract as part of the Competitive Dialogue Process.
5.4.5 The project agreement to be developed for the ISDS will comply with the Standardisation of
PFI Contracts, Version 4, (“SoPC 4”), dated March 2007 (including the latest consultation
drafting on Insurance and Freedom of Information), and will be supplemented by the
suggested sector-specific drafting contained in Part 8 of the 4Ps Waste Procurement Pack
and Waste Specific derogations published in May 2006. The Partnership expects the ISDS
contract to be consistent with these positions. Project-specific issues will, of course, need to
64
be addressed and incorporated into the draft project agreement, however any such necessary
further derogation will be raised with the Assembly Government as soon as they arise.
5.5 Payment Mechanism

5.5.1 The payment mechanism is both a method for payment and a way to incentivise performance.
As such, the payment mechanism will be linked to the service outputs defined in the Output
Specification and deductions will be applied when Output Specification standards are not
achieved. The payment mechanism will be supported by an effective performance monitoring
system to ensure performance meets the required standards.
5.5.2 Payment will be made monthly in arrears and reflect the performance for the previous month.
The broad principles of the payment mechanism are such that:
The Partnership only pays for services when they are delivered; and
Risk is transferred to the contractor in accordance with its performance obligations.
5.6 Contract Monitoring

5.6.1 The Partnership currently monitors existing waste management contracts, and has
established comprehensive monitoring systems to assist in this process. A dedicated team
within the Partnership will carry out the monitoring of the contract: its principal function will be
the monitoring of the performance measures using key performance criteria linked to the
specification. The majority of the data for this monitoring will be derived from the contractor
and so the contract monitoring team will need to be able to audit the results on a regular basis.
5.7 Markets for process outputs

5.7.1 The main output from the reference example technology project of Energy from Waste is
energy, through the export of electricity to the grid. Opportunities for combined heat and
power (CHP) will be sought, depending on the site location and characteristics, and the
availability of a heat sink. Furthermore opportunities will be explored with the market for high
recycling levels of process residues such as bottom ash and metals.
5.7.2 The contractor shall be responsible for securing third party waste to make up any spare
capacity within the facility, thereby reducing the price charged to the Partnership. The
contractor shall also be responsible for securing markets or disposal routes for other process
outputs such as recyclables, bottom ash, and air pollution control (APC) residues and rejected
material not suitable for thermal treatment. The potential for income generation and income
sharing proposals will be explored with bidders during the procurement.
65
Section 6: Project Team and Governance
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Acting through the Lead Authority, the Authorities intend to award a contract based on HM
Treasury's Standardisation of PFI Contracts guidance and, where derogations are required,
will base such derogations on the guidance relating to waste sector specific derogations
issued in May 2006. Sector specific principles will be followed as set out in 4ps Waste
Management Procurement Pack.
6.1.2 The Authorities, will, using the experience of the external advisers, other public sector
contacts and the Project Transactor seek to incorporate lessons learned on other similar
projects.
6.1.3 The Authorities will ensure that bidders are required to bid on the basis of the contractual
terms as indicated above and on the appropriate allocation of risks identified in the project risk
matrix.
6.2 Legal Context

6.2.1 Statutory Duty
6.2.2 The Partner Authorities are the Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA) for their designated area for
the purposes of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”). The five unitary
Authorities are also the Waste Collection Authorities for the purposes of the EPA.
6.2.3 The partner Authorities have certain obligations as WDA By virtue of (Section 51(1)(a) EPA):
“(a) for the disposal of the controlled waste collected in its area by the waste collection
authorities;
6.2.4 In statute, the duties, under s51 of the EPA, on an authority are often referred to as its
functions, and in the context of considering the powers of an authority “functions” refers to the
multiplicity of specific statutory activities an authority is expressly or impliedly under a duty to
perform.
6.2.5 Best Value
6.2.6 The partner Authorities, as best value authorities, have a general duty to make arrangements
to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having
regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, but without
limitation, the Council needs to keep in mind its current obligations as a ‘best value’ authority
(under the Local Government
6.2.7 Act 1999) the need to comply with its own constitutional procedures (and in particular those
relating to the award of contracts) as well as the general law on procurement and in particular
the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.
6.2.8 Certified Contracts
6.2.9 The partner Authorities have the power to enter into the contract under Section 111 of the
Local Government Act 1972 and if the contract is a contract for the provision or making
available of assets or services, under Section 1 of the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997
("LGCA"), for the purposes of, or in connection with, the discharge of that function.
66
6.2.10 If the contract is one that falls within the provisions of Section 1(1) of the LGCA, the partner
Authorities are entitled to issue a certificate for the contract in accordance with the
"certification requirements" set out at Section 3 of the LGCA.
67
6.3 Project Governance

6.3.1 The constituent unitary authorities are Waste Collection Authorities by virtue of s45 of the
Environmental Protection Act, 1990. In addition to collection, the collection authorities have
the power to carry out their own recycling schemes and to retain waste for that purpose. The
Partnership intend to work together towards as integrated an approach as possible in order to
ensure that the facility constructed is put to maximum and efficient use and to ensure the
Partnership is able to meet its obligations to its contractor. To that end the parties intend to
execute an inter authority agreement (IAA). The base draft Inter Authority Agreement is at
Appendix 6a.
6.3.2 The governance options available to the Partnership can be summarised as follows:-
A proposal to the Assembly Government for the establishment of a Joint Waste Authority
under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act;
Contractual arrangement between the five authorities where the statutory decision making is
retained by the authorities themselves;
An administrative arrangement between the five authorities where statutory decision making is
delegated to all of the authorities jointly and one or more authorities enters into contractual
relationships to implement the decisions; and
A corporate arrangement where five authorities form a corporate entity (where there is a
requirement to maintain accounts and an Order has first to be made by Assembly Government
Ministers. It has been agreed in consultation with the Partnership’s External Legal Advisers
that the most suitable option is an Administrative Arrangement Joint Executive/Committee
with a Lead Authority.
6.3.3 There is a broad consensus on the way ahead but future arrangements remain subject to
formal decisions by the individual Authorities3. The current Pre procurement governance
arrangements mirror the above.
3
The decision on implementing this approach is expected by each Authority in December 2009 this
report will be updated accordingly
68
6.3.4 It is proposed that the implementation of the Joint Executive/Committees decisions for
procurement will be implemented through a Lead Authority. With this governance model,
once the Waste Management Contract has been agreed then the benefits and obligations of
that Contract will be "stepped down" by the Lead Authority and will revert back to the other
four Authorities.
6.3.5 A structure is set out in Figure 6.1 below:-
69
Fig 6.1 Project Gwyrdd Structure
Caerphilly Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport Vale of

County County County Council City Council Glamorgan
Borough Council County Council
Council
Delegation
Benefits obligations
and indemnities
Joint Executive Committee
Decision
Lead Authority
Contract
Waste Management
Contractor
6.3.6 To support and enable the joint working arrangements there will be a Joint Working
Agreement ("JWA") between the authorities in Project Gwyrdd which will deal with the
procurement of the Contractor for the waste management contract and the terms of reference
of the Joint Executive/Committee. The Heads of Terms of the JWA are annexed at Appendix
6a.
70
6.4 Project Team Governance

6.4.1 Project Management
6.4.2 The individuals making up the Project Management team are set out in Figure 6.2 below.
Figure 6.2 Project Board and Project Team Structure
1.1.1.1.1.1 Project Board
1.1.1.1.1.2 Steven Phillips - Senior Responsible

Officer (Business Owner)
Tara King - Project Manager
Project Executives
Mark Williams (Business Advisor CCBC)

Dave Harris (Business Advisor MCC)
Stephen Davidson (Business Advisor NCC)
Cliff Parish (Business Advisor VoGCC)
Elizabeth Weale – Lead Legal Officer

Elizabeth Lucas – Head of Procurement External Advisors
Joyce Stevens – Head of Finance (Section 151 officer) Parsons Brinkerhoff – Technical
TBC – Risk/Insurance Advisor (Project Assurance) Pinsent Masons - Legal
Howel Jones – PUK Transactor (Project Assurance) Grant Thornton - Finance
Project Team
Tara King - Project Manager (Team Leader)

TBC –Technical Manager (Lead Technical Officer)
TBC – Solicitor (Legal Officer) Stakeholder
TBC – Procurement Manager (Lead Procurement Officer)
Hrjinder Singh – Finance Manager (Lead Finance Officer)
Groups
TBC – Communications Officer (Lead Communications
Officer)
TBC – Project Control Officer
Victoria Thorne – Project Administrator
TBC – Planning Support
TBC - Human Resource Support
71
6.4.3 The roles and responsibilities of the project board and project team are set out below. The
Senior Responsible officer of the Project Board is Steven Phillips Corporate Director
responsible for the Project Board and:
Appointing the Project Manager and agreeing their remit and delegated Authority;
Providing advice and guidance to the Project Manager;
Providing Overall strategic Guidance for the project;
Endorsing the key deliverables and milestone reports namely: Project Initiation Report, Initial
Business Case, Options Appraisal, Outline Business Case, Common Reports, Final Business
Case;
Agreeing the Project Programme;
Agreeing the project tolerances for time cost and quality;
Ensuring required project resources are available and authorised;
Signing of end of Stage and next stage reports with deliverables;
Authorisation of exception reports of deviations;
Resolving deviations from plans or escalating as necessary;
Resolve any conflicts escalated by the project team; and
Communicating Project Information to:
Joint Committee – Residual Waste Treatment Project
Joint Scrutiny Residual Waste Treatment
Other key Stakeholders
Welsh Assembly Government
The quality assurance of the project
The risks associated to the project
Approving the end of project and lessons learnt report
Scheduling and implementing the post project review.
6.4.4 Working alongside its technical, legal and financial advisors, the Project Team effectively
manages the day to work. The project team is responsible for:
Assisting the Project Manager to deliver the project’s objectives within their technical expertise
by carrying out the elements of the project they are tasked with;
With particular reference to project risks and issues that are likely to impact upon project
deliverables and to participate in the risk activity and mitigation measures; and
Providing information for project documentation.
6.4.5 To assist, the Lead Officers of the project team manage key stakeholder sub groups
consisting of a member from each discipline (technical, legal finance, procurement, and
communication) from each Authority to ensure that each Partner Authority has sufficient
representation and relevant consultation and that the Project Team is fully advised of key
partner concerns. The Project Manager meets Partner Authority project management teams
from each Authority as requested or required and the Project Manager is responsible for
defining Project Team roles and responsibilities and reports as necessary to the Project
Board.
6.4.6 In the absence of a corresponding Assembly Government guidance document, for prudence
the Partnership will ensure continuity from the procurement phase to the contract
management phase by paying due regard to the Project Transition Guidance produced by the
Treasury's Operational Taskforce.
72
6.4.7 Project and PFI experience of the Project Team
6.4.8 Senior Responsible Officer Steven Phillips has relevant Qualifications of Senior Responsible
officer: Cardiff County Council Corporate Director for Waste Management 2005-2008, was
previously the Assembly Government Head of Financial Planning 2001-2004 and was the
officer responsible for Bute Avenue, PFI Scheme, Cardiff 1999-2000.
6.4.9 The Project Manager Tara King Has relevant Qualifications of Project Manager: with 15 years
experience in the Waste Management sector principally has lead the Cardiff Council’s Waste
Capital Programme Manager for 7 years and delivered significant operational changes and is
a qualified PRINCE2 Practitioner.
6.4.10 All of the Project Executives business advisors to the Project Board, have extensive
experience of procuring and managing waste contracts and project board key officers have
experience of operating within PFI contracts.
6.4.11 Advisers
6.4.12 The Partnership has appointed legal/technical financial advisers to assist in the procurement
of the Waste Management Contract as follows:
Legal - Pinsent Masons
Technical - Parsons Brinckerhoff
Financial - Grant Thornton
6.4.13 The CVs of all relevant advisers are contained in Appendix 6b together with details of the
scope of work for each adviser.
6.4.14 The Project Manager and relevant officers meet on a regular basis, with representatives of all
the advisers in order to co-ordinate and monitor work in progress, and to scrutinise the
performance of the advisers.
73
Section 7: Sites and Planning
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 It is nationally recognised that site availability and successful attainment of planning
permission for waste management facilities is pivotal to the success of any waste
management strategy. The importance of this is increasing with approaching targets set by
the Landfill Directive and known timescales to establish new, fully-functioning facilities. Site
identification, evaluation and planning determination are emotive issues which can lead to
delays.
7.1.2 National and regional planning guidance has been prepared to assist the processes of
development plan preparation, suitable site identification and to aid the planning determination
process. Development frameworks, plans, policies, issues and options are being developed
and reviewed by the Prosiect Gwyrdd authorities. At present each authority is at a different
stage in its Local Development Plan process as follows:
Caerphilly
7.1.2.1 The Council has established 3 LDP Management Groups to assist in the preparation of the
LDP. They are the Focus Group, Sustainability Group and Stakeholder Panel.
Cardiff
7.1.2.2 In May 2005, following agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff Council
resolved to cease preparation of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and commence work
on a new Local Development Plan (LDP). When adopted, the LDP will replace existing
structure and local plans for Cardiff.
7.1.2.3 Deposit of the LDP is due for completion in Autumn 2008. An Annual Monitoring Report and
Plan review will commence in October 2011.
7.1.2.4 The Council published its preferred strategy for waste in October 2007, proposing to move
away from unsustainable landfill disposal towards re-use and recycling over the next twenty
years, with a range of targets for different waste streams. The strategy proposes that new
sustainable waste management methods will be accommodated on the existing land bank of
sites for general industry.
Monmouthshire
7.1.2.5 The Delivery Agreement for the Monmouthshire County Council Local Development Plan
(LDP) was agreed by the Welsh Assembly Government on 16 November 2007. The Delivery
Agreement includes a timetable for the preparation of the Plan and a Community
Involvement Scheme that sets out the Council’s proposals for engaging the community and
stakeholders in the process.
7.1.2.6 Deposit of the LDP is due for completion in February 2010 with the adoption of LDP due for
December 2011. An Annual Monitoring Report and Plan review will commence in October
2013.
Newport
74
7.1.2.7 The council will shortly start work on a new Local Development Plan (LDP) under the
Planning and Compensation Act 2004. When adopted, the LDP will replace the current
Unitary Development Plan.
Vale of Glamorgan
7.1.2.8 Deposit of the LDP is due for completion in February 2010 with the adoption of LDP due for
December 2011. An Annual Monitoring Report and Plan review will commence in October
2013.
7.1.2.9 While none of the Local Development Plans are in Adopted form, they are guided by the
South East Wales Regional Waste Group and its Regional Waste Plan (RWP). The RWP
has been through its first Review stage and has been subject to a consultation period. This
has been approved by the Steering Group and, once feedback from the consultation has
been taken into account, will be published in full later in 2008. It is therefore considered
appropriate to use the RWP as the principal guidance document upon which to base this
evaluation of potential sites and to provide supportive evidence of site availability for this
Outline Business Case.
7.2 Site Identification

7.2.1 In South East Wales, the RWP identifies a total of 734 developable hectares of land which are
‘existing’ or have been ‘allocated’ for B2 or major industry use. A total of 468 hectares are
within the area remit of the Prosiect Gwyrdd authorities, 59 being specifically named sites as
shown in Appendix 7a, spread throughout the Prosiect Gwyrdd authorities. The RWP goes on
to state that this quantity of land is more than sufficient to satisfy the perceived land area
requirements to accommodate predicted additional waste facility needs.
7.2.2 The ‘Areas of Search’ within the RWP have been identified through the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) / Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process using the SA
objectives, criteria and weightings and as such, any significant negative effects have been
minimised. These form the basis for Local Planning Authorities to identify further sites and to
subject them to more local level assessments for inclusion in individual development plans.
To assist local authorities, example local level assessment criteria have also been provided in
the RWP.
7.3 Site Availability

7.3.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd encompasses local authority areas that, as identified by the RWP, have a
total of 468 developable hectares suitable for waste management facilities. While it is
acknowledged that at the local level several of these sites will be discounted, others may be
identified and combined within Local Development Plans. It is therefore considered that
suitable sites with more than sufficient developable area will be identified to locate waste
management facilities in order to demonstrate the deliverability of Prosiect Gwyrdd through
this Outline Business Case.
7.3.2 The Partnership is currently evaluating suitable land availability within the prescribed criteria.
The process undertaken is considered to mirror the works of the South East Wales Regional
Waste Plan (RWP) and the individual Councils planning policies; it does not infer technology
nor pre-empt the Councils’ emerging Local Development Plans. The compiled list of 59 sites
subject to this assessment is founded on the list taken from the South East Wales Regional
Waste Plan Recommended Draft 1st Review (dated March 2008). A set of criteria have been
established, against which each site is assessed. These criteria are based on the RWP
Areas of Search criteria and project specific criteria for Prosiect Gwyrdd. The assessment
75
process will also assist the partnership to evaluate the sites position again the WIDP Planning
Health Framework.
7.3.3 Prominent waste management companies are known to be showing considerable interest in
provision of waste treatment facilities for the current and future management of waste in South
Wales, including but not limited to the municipal waste stream. It is reasonable to assume that
site options and planning permissions for facilities could be obtained prior to the award of the
Prosiect Gwyrdd contract. This interest further demonstrates that there are suitable sites
available, again supporting the deliverability of Prosiect Gwyrdd.
7.3.4 Any application submitted or approved under the current planning policies, particularly for a
major facility, is not considered to be detrimental to the Prosiect Gwyrdd procurement process
or to prejudice subsequent Prosiect Gwyrdd planning applications. The merits of any planning
application and full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be determined according to
relevant policy.
7.4 Sites Strategy

7.4.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd aims to offer a potential site in local authority control for use in the
Competitive Dialogue process. By offering a potential site to bidders Prosiect Gwyrdd aims to
maximise the competitive potential during the tendering process by providing interested
parties with a potentially suitable location upon which to base their solutions. This approach
does not prevent bidders putting forward other sites under their control as part of their bid and
may form a discussion point during the dialogue stage. Prosiect Gwyrdd would ultimately
judge the merits of each tender during the evaluation stages of the procurement.
7.4.2 Prosiect Gwyrdd intends to continue its investigation of potential sites to offer for the
procurement, as well as providing access to sites already identified in the RWP. It is
recognised that while any site offered by the Partnership could be scoped for suitability, only
limited progress for planning would be possible. Responsibility for establishing full planning
permission would lie with the successful bidder, as a detailed planning application and
associated EIA would be dependent on the specific technology and design.
7.5 Design Considerations

7.5.1 The contractor shall be responsible for the appropriate design of the facilities for the delivery
of the service.
7.5.2 Bidders will be required to provide complete design of any proposed facilities, meeting
minimum design evaluation criteria. Flexibility of design will be essential to ensure planning
permission is secured within a reasonable timeframe. Key to this would be ensuring a positive
attitude towards public perception taking into account street-scene views, architectural
expression, orientation, boundary treatment, landscape and sustainability. Relevant local
policy and guidance will also be integral to the design steer with the RWP and LDPs providing
essential background for this work.
7.5.3 The Partner authorities are familiar with the use of Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) in
assessing the design quality of bids and wish to utilise the most up to date design specification
for the building, consulting with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(CABE) to ensure this. On this project a number of critical indicators such as site layout, built
form, boundaries and site access are expected to be used as the basis of the design
evaluation. In addition the evaluation criteria will include factors to ensure that the most
efficient construction techniques are employed and that the contractors supply chain is
76
appropriately managed. The evaluation criteria will be fully worked up prior to the issue of the
OJEU notice and will be included within the Information Memorandum sent to bidders.
7.5.4 The facility will be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a requirement of
the planning process. The Partnership has built in sufficient time for the development of the
EIA as far as possible during the procurement phase of the project, and the EIA will then be
completed by the successful bidder to reflect the selected bid and technology.
77
Section 8: Cost, Budgets and Finance
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Having defined the Reference Project in section 4, this section sets out the financial analysis
performed by the Partnership, the understanding of the cost of the project and examines the
following:
The cost of the procurement phase of the project and Partners’ anticipated contributions;
Other project costs which fall outside the Contractor’s Shadow Tariff Model;
The affordability of the Reference Project (‘Reference Project with High Recycling’) with the
Assembly Government funding support, including a comparison of the Reference Project with
High Recycling option with the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ Option and the effect on the
affordability position of sensitivities carried out on key cost assumptions;
The value for money of the chosen procurement route for this contract, using OGC and HM
Treasury value for money assessment guidelines; and
The current position in relation to Members' commitment to the affordability envelope.
8.1.2 At this stage the Partnership is waiting for clarity as to the Welsh Assembly Government’s
plans to financially support partnerships across Wales in relation to residual waste. There has
been dialogue between the Partnership, Assembly Government officials and their advisors,
Partnerships UK (PUK), concerning the level of support expected as equivalent to other UK
waste projects. The current status of these discussions and the minimum level of financial
support expected are discussed in more detail later in this section.
8.1.3 The Partnership feels it is unable to present Members with a clearly defined affordability
position to consider, so long as there remains uncertainty around the level and type of external
financial support for the project.
8.2 Procurement Costs

8.2.1 The Partnership has agreed a Procurement Cost Schedule that is appropriate for a project of
Prosiect Gwyrdd's size and nature. The latest approved version of the schedule is attached in
Appendix 8a. The projected costs approved, Assembly Government funding via the Regional
Capital Access Fund (RCAF) and resultant partnership contributions are detailed in Table 8.1
below.
Table 8.1 Projected Procurement Costs

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Total
Actual Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected
Gross 242,171 667,102 760,286 795,501 146,899 2,611,959
Expenditure
Assembly -200,000 -111,552 -186,207 -186,207 -31,034 *-715,000
Government
RCAF grant
Total Partnership
Contribution 42,170 555,550 574,079 609,294 115,865 1,896,958
*- £600,000 formally confirmed in writing to-date
8.2.2 Each partner is responsible for ensuring that they can meet their respective contributions. The
Project Manager in conjunction with the Finance Lead Officer is responsible for monitoring and
78
controlling costs in relation to the project account. Actual costs, updated projections and
variances will be regularly reported to the Project Board.
8.2.3 The project team costs and supporting groups and governance are described in section 6 and
are fully provided for within the procurement cost schedule.
8.2.4 The agreements with the Partnership’s three main advisors (Legal, Technical and Financial)
are similar in nature and provide control over services procured and costs charged. Each of
the advisors were procured through a competitive exercise and were required to submit a
fixed fee bid for each of the 4 main phases of the project (OBC, Pre-procurement, Competitive
Dialogue and Financial Close).
8.2.5 In addition to their fixed fee bids, each advisor has also submitted Day Rates at consultant
grades for additional work. Any additional work must be agreed in advance and charged
separately from the basic procurement. Advisor appointments are reviewed at the end of each
Phase and re-appointment is subject to satisfactory performance and the necessary budget
approval process.
8.2.6 Procurement costs are part funded by the Assembly Government’s Regional Capital Access
Fund (RCAF) grant with the balance being met equally by each partner. The Partnership has
been advised that the final amount allocated to the project under the RCAF grant scheme is
£715,000.
8.3 Other Project Costs

8.3.1 As the project progresses through the procurement, additional costs and services will be
required. For the purpose of this OBC all costs included within the affordability modelling as
falling outside the Contractor’s Shadow Price have been included under the heading of ‘Other’
project costs and are outlined in Table 8.2 below.
Table 8.2 Other Project Costs

2008-09 2009-10 *2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 **2015-16
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Site Acquisition £0 £XXX £0 £0 £0 £0
Planning Surveys
& Assessments £102,500 £52,531 £0 £0 £0 £0
Construction £0 £0 £82,786 £254,567 £260,931 £0
Monitoring
NNDR £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £791,962
Contract £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £121,840
Monitoring
Cost to be met by £102,500 £4,213,006 £82,786 £254,567 £260,931 £913,802
Partners
* No costs currently identified in 2010-11
st
** 2014/15 is a part-year effect, 2015-16 1 full year
The project has set-out a number of assumptions in order to complete the affordability modelling and
determine the relative cost of each option. These assumptions are clearly documented in the ‘OBC
Cost Assumption’ document and attached at Appendix 8b (whole document redacted. Information
redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with
Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
79
8.3.2 ).
8.3.3 It should be noted that whilst the partnership has taken a particular view on how project costs
may flow, it is accepted that the final form the contract takes may vary to the assumptions
agreed at this stage. It has been necessary to ensure that all costs, relevant to the options
that are known or anticipated at this stage, have been fully considered and where appropriate
incorporated within the affordability assessment. The final basis for sharing, ‘Other
Procurement Costs', will be agreed as part of the Inter Authority Agreement.
8.3.4 The affordability assessment has clearly highlighted the considerable level of resources
required to procure, design, build, operate and maintain a modern waste treatment facility to
manage the Partnership’s residual waste. Partners acknowledge the cost implications
outlined in this OBC for their respective authorities and seek to secure commitment through
their annual budgetary framework processes.
8.4 Potential Land Development Costs

8.4.1 As described in section 7 the Partnership proposes to offer a site to bidders for use in the
contract, the strategy of offering a location is aimed at levelling the playing field and to
enhance competition for the contract. As such the Partnership is seeking to secure an option
on a site; the estimated costs for this are described in Table 8.2. It is anticipated that the
outlay to purchase the site could be up to £XXX. This cost assumes a charge will be made
by a private land owner to this value, however site assessments currently underway may filter
technically viable publicly owned sites that could be acquired for considerably less, however it
is considered prudent to evaluate an estimated worst case scenario until a site can be
validated.
8.4.2 In addition to which, a planning pack needs to be developed for bidders (to include EIA
Scoping Reports, relevant background information, Site surveys and environmental baseline
monitoring information) and public consultation costs will also apply. These costs total
£155,031, spread over years 2008/09-2009/10. (See table 8.2.).
8.5 Cost of the Reference Project

8.5.1 Section 4 of the Outline Business Case outlined the process used to arrive at the Reference
Project. In order to derive the costs of the Reference Project a three stage process has been
undertaken:
8.5.2 A waste flow and cost model has been developed by the Technical Advisors in conjunction
with the Partnership’s Technical Officers. This produced the underlying technical and cost
information used to arrive at the Reference Project. The waste flows reflect the key
assumptions about waste growth, up-front recycling and the amount of residual waste suitable
for treatment. The upfront recycling percentages are based on the Assembly Government’s
challenging recycling targets, eventually reaching 65% in 2019/20. The calculations are
based on the Assembly Government’s dataflow definitions and complement the methodology
used to prepare statutory returns on a quarterly basis. The Technical Advisors then applied
financial information to the waste flows using their database of capital, lifecycle and operating
costs, combined with the Partnership's context including knowledge of the reference site and
local disposal/recycling costs. The key technical assumptions used by the Technical Advisors
can be found in the "Technical Assumptions Data Book" document in Appendix 4b (Document
redacted. The Information has been redacted as it relates to the financial or business affairs of
80
the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure
Rules.).
8.5.3 A "shadow tariff" model has been constructed by the Finance Advisors, which calculates the
projected cost to the Authority of procuring a Reference Project through a Design, Build,
Finance, Operate and Maintain (DBFOM) "PPP" type contract. The shadow tariff has been
calculated using a financial model in a form that the private sector would use to price their
proposals. The cost and waste flow assumptions are taken from the Technical Assumptions
Data Book. The project finance assumptions and bid transactions costs are based on the
knowledge of the Partnership's Finance Advisors who have exposure to current bid
submissions in the market. A copy of the summary sheet from the shadow tariff model is
included as Appendix 8c (Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of
the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure
Rules) and an electronic copy of the Financial Model Data Book accompanies the OBC as
Appendix 8d (Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners,
and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules). An
advisor’s letter in respect of the quality assurance performed on the financial modelling has
been provided by Grant Thornton and is attached as Appendix 8e.
8.5.4 An affordability model has been developed by the Partnership with the Finance Advisors
overseeing the process and ‘sense checking’ the results. The affordability modelling exercise
adds all relevant indirect costs of the Reference Project, which are outside of payments to the
Contractor under the Shadow Price (e.g. Business Rates) and the landfill disposal costs
relating to all of the options (including those of the Reference Project).
8.5.5 The Partnership and its advisors recognise the importance of completing a thorough analysis
of the anticipated cost of the project by using prudent estimates for affordability purposes. As
such calculations have been conservative with assumptions that the Partnership has limited
control over to reduce the possibility that the project will be subject to affordability issues
during procurement dialogue. Key elements of this approach are:
8.5.6 Furthermore, the project finance assumptions used to price the Reference Project have been
benchmarked against assumptions from similar projects that are currently in procurement and
in line with best practice.
It is however anticipated that there are likely to be movements, both adverse and favourable in
that period.
8.5.7 The Partnership has also considered very carefully the demand for any spare capacity from
the Reference Project and believes that demand for this spare capacity will be high because
of the reducing supply of landfill void space in South East Wales. As a result, income from the
sale of this spare capacity has been modelled.
8.5.8 The Partnership has also reviewed and updated its project timetable and reviewed its
assumptions around key risks such as construction period inflation. As a result, for the
81
purposes of calculating the cost of the Reference Project, the following assumptions have
been updated:
(1) The Reference Project's wasteflows have been updated to reflect the change in the
project's timetable; and
(2) The rate of inflation for the project's capital expenditure ("Capex") costs has been
increased
8.5.9 Because of the inherent uncertainties behind the assumptions used to cost the Reference
Project, the Partnership has also run a number of sensitivities to understand how changes in
key assumptions will impact on the cost of the project. These are discussed in more detail
later in this section.
8.6 Qualitative Assessment

8.6.1 The guidance states that DBFOM should generally apply to large projects which are critical to
the delivery of public services. DBFOM projects commit the Procuring Authority to a particular
provider for some years ahead and whether the projects are successful or not will depend on
both cost and also on a number of qualitative and quantitative considerations relevant to
deciding the most appropriate procurement / contract route.
8.6.2 The three qualitative factors identified by the Guidance are as follows:
Viability – Confirmation that the investment objectives and all desired project outcomes can
be translated into outputs that are measurable, contractible and can be agreed. This factor
also involves assessing whether there are efficiency or accountability issues which demand
that the project is provided by the public sector directly rather than through the DBFOM
contract route.
Desirability – Assessing the relative merits of different procurement routes. Considerations

include incentivisation, risk transfer, the Government’s lower cost of borrowing in conventional
procurement, and the relative advantages and disadvantages associated with a long-term
contractual relationship between the public and private sectors.
Achievability – Gauging the expected level of market interest and whether the public sector
client would have sufficient capability to manage the complex processes involved. This is
integral to both the procurement of the services and their ongoing management and
performance.
8.6.3 The Partnership has given due consideration to a series of qualitative questions designed to
verify the decision for proceeding with DBFOM. Table 8.3 below summarises the Authority's
response to each of the three qualitative factors described above. The full list of questions
and responses is included in Appendix 8f.
Table 8.3 Qualitative Assessment Summary

Qualitative Summary question from the The public sector’s considered response
factor Guidance
Viability Overall, in considering DBFOM, is the The contract structure should aid the delivery of the
Partnership satisfied that suitable Partnerships' strategic aims and objectives, achieving
long-term contracts with sufficient flexibility while still being value for money.
flexibility can be constructed, and that
strategic and regulatory issues are
appropriate for the Partnership to
82
Qualitative Summary question from the The public sector’s considered response
factor Guidance
proceed with a DBFOM contract?
Desirability Overall, is the accounting officer The anticipated benefits of the proposed route which will
satisfied that a DBFOM contract outweigh the higher costs of capital are:
would bring sufficient benefits that risk transfer of future costs
would outweigh the expected higher performance
cost of capital? certainty of service delivery over the
contract life
provision of a market led solution
provision of an innovative solution
Aggregation of risks of construction
and on-going delivery.
Achievability Overall is the accounting officer The Partnership has allocated the appropriate level of
satisfied that a DBFOM procurement resources and expertise to the project supported by
programme is achievable, given client experienced consultants, sought market testing and the
side capability and the attractiveness provision of an interim contract which has received
of the proposals to the market? positive feedback. The private sector is familiar with
what is being procured and risk sharing is based on the
recognised market positions.
8.6.4 Based on the qualitative project level assessment, the Partnership believes that this waste
project meets the viability, desirability and achievability requirements of the guidance,
confirming the initial programme level assessment decision that a DBFOM contract offers
value for money.
8.7 Quantitative Assessment

8.7.1 The quantitative assessment considers how the quantifiable costs and benefits of using the
DBFOM contract option are likely to compare with conventional procurement through the
Public Sector Comparator (PSC). This involves estimating values for the capital and operating
costs attached to the project and adjusting these for any inherent optimism bias and/or
specific risks as well as expected transaction costs. For the DBFOM contract option, the
project cost is calculated using an assumption of private financing, adjusting relevant cost
factors accordingly. The ‘Value for Money Quantitative Assessment generic model’ issued by
Treasury (“Treasury model”) was used, as required by the guidance. This model has been
developed by the Treasury, in conjunction with Partnerships UK, to capture the values and
enable sensitivity testing that are required as part of the project level assessment. The
guidance defines the two procurement methods as follows:
The PSC Option – Procurement through conventional approaches that use public funding (for
example, letting a design and build contract for the construction of an asset, and then letting
annual operating and maintenance contracts for the ongoing operation and maintenance of
that asset); and
The DBFOM Option – A specific procurement methodology through which the public sector
lets a DBFOM contract to the private sector for the construction and whole life maintenance of
an asset and/or associated service.
8.7.2 This section contains the following:

An outline of the key assumptions behind each of the inputs required by the Treasury model,
together with the supporting evidence for these assumptions;
Indicative value for money results and subsequent analysis of these results; and
83
The outcome of sensitivity analysis performed using the Treasury model.
8.8 Key Input Assumptions

8.8.1 Whilst a number of the assumptions for the Treasury model have been pre-set and cannot be
altered, a significant number of project specific input assumptions have been made. These are
detailed in Appendix 8g - Value for Money Databook, and table 8.4 below provides a summary
of the key input assumptions made in undertaking the value for money assessment.
Table 8.4 Key Input Assumptions Summary
8.9 Optimism Bias

8.9.1 The Treasury model accounts for the impact of uncertainty over project costs through input
assumptions for optimism bias. Optimism bias relates to the demonstrated and systematic
tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic when considering project benefits and
costs.
8.9.2 The guidance states that there is currently little, if any, evidence to suggest that either
conventional or DBFOM style contract procurement methods deal any more or less efficiently
with optimism bias. However there is evidence that the allocation of risks achieved under a
DBFOM contract reduces the impact of any optimism bias on the procuring authority as
compared to the contractual arrangements typically resulting from a PSC option.
8.9.3 The Guidance explains that in accounting for optimism bias the Treasury model differentiates
between two key stages of the investment decision process, namely pre Final Business Case
(FBC) and post FBC. FBC in this instance represents the date of contract award. The pre FBC
optimism bias factor represents the increase in estimated costs or shortfall in estimated
income between the OBC and the FBC stage. Post FBC optimism bias factor represents the
increase in costs or the shortfall in income between the date of contract award and the
completion of the associated asset(s).
8.9.4 Fundamental to the internal operation of the Treasury model is the assumption that the impact
of post-FBC optimism bias will be greater under the PSC option than the DBFOM option. The
Treasury model requires inputs for both pre- and post-FBC optimism bias percentages for
capex, lifecycle costs, opex, transaction costs and third party income. These inputs are
detailed in Table 8.5.1 below. Comprehensive details of how the inputs were derived are
provided in Appendix 8f - Optimism Bias
Table 8.5.1 Pre & Post FBC Optimism Bias Percentages

Cost Element Overall OB % Pre-FBC OB % Post-FBC OB %
Capex 71% 18% 53%
Lifecycle 55% 15% 40%
Opex 30% 10% 20%
Transaction 30% 10% 20%
Third party income 20% 10% 10%
84
8.9.5 As shown in Table 8.5 above, the overall level of optimism bias relating to capex is 71%. The
pre-FBC optimism bias of 18% represents the increase in costs up to the point of contract
award and the post-FBC optimism bias of 53% represents the potential cost increases after
contract award. As stated above, the impact of the post-FBC optimism bias for the procuring
authority is likely to be reduced by a DBFOM contractual structure.
8.9.6 The key outputs from the Treasury model are the PSC's risk adjusted Net Present Value
(NPV) of the project, the DBFOM equivalent and the indicative DBFOM value for money
percentage representing the percentage difference between the two.
8.9.7 Indicative DBFOM Value for Money Results
8.9.8 For the base case scenario the indicative DBFOM value for money percentage is generated
using a pre-shareholder tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the private sector of 15%, the
rate that is deemed most comparable to the return requirements seen in recent waste DBFOM
bid submissions. This produces an indicative DBFOM value for money percentage of 21.1%,
confirming DBFOM as having the potential to offer value for money for the project. Key
information from the Treasury model can be found in the VFM Databook at Appendix 8g. The
base case scenario results are summarised thus:
Table 8.5.2 Indicative Value for Money results

PSC NPV £ millions DBFOM NPV £ millions
Base Case Scenario (15% pre-

526.7 415.8
tax IRR)
Indicative DBFOM value for

21.1%
money %
8.10 Sensitivity Analysis

8.10.1 The Treasury model allows the identification of 'indifference points' to demonstrate the level of
change required in the value of individual inputs for the PSC and DBFOM NPVs to become
equal, such that the procuring authority is indifferent between the two procurement routes. The
table below sets out the indifference points for capital and operating expenditure for the PSC
option and for the Unitary Charge for the DBFOM option.
Table 8.5.3 Indifference points

Base Case 15% Sensitivity 13% Sensitivity 18%
Value for money
IRR IRR IRR
PSC NPV (adjusted) £526.7 million £526.7 million £526.7 million
DBFOM NPV (adjusted) £415.8 million £406.1 million £431.7 million
‘Crude’ VfM 21.1% 22.9% 18.0%
Indifference points
Change to PSC capital cost to reach -36% -39% -31%
indifference
85
Base Case 15% Sensitivity 13% Sensitivity 18%

Value for money
IRR IRR IRR
Change to PSC operating cost (non- -95% -103% -82%
employment) to reach indifference
Change to PSC operating cost -168% -183% -144%

(employment) to reach indifference
Change to PSC transaction cost to reach -1,891% -2,059% -1,625%

indifference
Change to DBFOM Unitary Charge to reach +32% +36% +26%

indifference
8.10.2 The analysis demonstrates that, in the base case, the capex under the PSC would have to
decrease by 36% in order for the Partners to be indifferent between the two options (namely
the PSC and DBFOM options). Similarly, non-employment opex would have to decrease by
95% under the PSC. Employment related opex would have to decrease by 168% under the
PSC for its NPV to become equal to the NPV of the DBFOM option. All of these are clearly
outside the guidance benchmark of 5% to suggest that the value for money assertion for
DBFOM is robust.
8.10.3 Affordability constraints aside, the Unitary Charge under the DBFOM option would have to
increase by 32% for the Partners to be indifferent between the two procurement options. This
is also clearly, well above the guidance benchmark of 3% for the conclusions drawn to be
considered robust.
8.10.4 In addition to the above, additional sensitivity analysis was conducted using the Treasury
model by generating different scenarios with a variety of input assumptions compared to the
base case scenario, to assess the impact on the indicative DBFOM value for money
percentage. The full detail of the sensitivity analysis can be found in the VFM Databook at
Appendix 8g.
Table 8.5.4 Sensitivity analysis results

Results Base case Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
15% IRR Increase in Post FBC PSC lifecycle PSC Non

Swap rate of 2% Optimism Bias costs are employment
reduced by reduced by 20% costs are
40% reduced by 30%
Crude VFM 21.1% 12.1% 10.2% 16.9% 15.4%
of DBFOM
8.10.5 Conclusion
8.10.6 Assuming that all other assumptions remain the same, capital costs in the PSC option would
have to be reduced by 36% in order for the cost of both options to be the same and therefore
create indifference in a value for money assessment. This would equate to a cost saving of
approximately £57 million, which is unlikely to be achievable within the PSC option
86
(remembering that the scope of project procured as a PSC is the same as that procured
through DBFOM). It is therefore considered that VfM has been demonstrated on a robust
basis in respect of capital costs.
8.10.7 As indicated in the above table, the indifference points for operating costs and transaction
costs are so large that it is unlikely that actual changes in these costs would impact on the
VfM decision.
8.10.8 The Unitary Charge for the DBFOM scheme would have to increase by 32% for the costs of
this option to equal those under the PSC option. An increase of this level would require there
to be significant calculation errors in the HMT model. This is an unlikely scenario and the
model is considered to be robust with regard to the Unitary Charge.
8.10.9 Based on the results of sensitivity analysis and assuming 15% IRR, it would require a
reduction in the PSC capital costs of 15%, combined with a 20% decrease in both lifecycle,
operating and transaction costs for the PSC cost to equal the DBFOM cost. Whilst each of
these individual reductions are very significant, and unlikely reductions on their own, the
probability of an outcome combining all of these reductions is considered to be very low and
as such serves to reinforce the robustness of the assumptions in the VfM model.
8.11 Affordability Analysis

8.11.1 This section assesses the affordability of the “Reference Project with High Recycling” option
against what in standard terminology would be the “Do Minimum” option (i.e. sending residual
waste to landfill) often used to benchmark the cost of proposed projects. The terminology has
been changed in this Outline Business Case to “Landfill with High Recycling”. This is to
emphasise that the assessment has considered that High recycling would apply to both the
reference option and do minimum options so as to be clear that it is the residual element only
that differs between the two. It is also widely understood that the continuation of sending
residual waste to landfill under such an option (i.e. business as usual) is viewed by the
Assembly Government and the Partnership as unsustainable. In any case, there is some
doubt over the availability (and cost) of local landfill void over the proposed contract period.
8.11.2 Both options are predicated on the achievement of high upfront recycling, in line with
Assembly Government policy. These high recycling percentages impact significantly upon the
project but the achievement of them and their associated cost does not fall within the scope of
Prosiect Gwyrdd.
8.11.3 In order to determine affordability, the partnership has assessed:
the ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’ option delivered through a DBFOM contract and
compares this with the cost of:
the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ option;
the Partnership’s Budget
Both options assume that the Partnering authorities individually increase their Recycling &
Composting (R&C) to 65% of their total Municipal Solid Waste tonnages [as set out interim
strategy for achieving LAS targets] with the remaining 35% (residual) waste either being sent
to Landfill or treated through the Reference Project.
8.11.4 ‘Landfill with High Recycling’
8.11.5 The ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ option assumes the same level of recycling, upstream
processes, and overall upstream performance as for the ‘Reference Project with High
Recycling’ option. However under this option residual waste will continue to be sent to landfill,
87
and be subject to the uncertainties of on-going landfill gate fees, landfill tax and LAS
implications.
8.11.6 Although the same assumptions are used in each of the options, they have a far more
significant impact on the "Landfill with High Recycling" option. In modelling the base position
this has been reflected as follows:
Landfill gate fee – Each partner’s existing gate fee arrangements have been modelled until
such time as these cease, at which point they revert to the ‘Assumed Market Price’
determined as being
Landfill Tax – The latest budget revealed the government’s intention to continue increasing
the standard rate of landfill tax after £48 per tonne is reached in April 2010. In the absence of
guidance about the rate of increase an assumption has been made that this tax will continue
to increase by a rate of
LAS fines – the assumption is that the LAS targets and policy continues beyond 2020 but with
targets for BMW to landfill remaining at the level in the last year of the scheme.
8.11.7 Projected Budgets
8.11.8 The budget comparator has been compiled from each Partner’s 2008-09 waste disposal
budget, adjusted to reflect the relevant % of waste being managed by Prosiect Gwyrdd and
extrapolated over the evaluation period by applying inflation at 2.5% per year.
8.11.9 The waste disposal budget is limited to existing disposal activities which in the main is the cost
of landfill. Table 8.6 details the Partnership’s current and projected waste disposal budget,
excluding any additional budget approvals that will inevitably be required to manage
increasing costs over the evaluation period. The budgets for Prosiect Gwyrdd have been
calculated as a percentage of the total waste to landfill to reflect the scope of residual waste
being managed through Prosiect Gwyrdd (35%).
Table 8.6 Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership Budget at 2008 base prices (Nominal)
2008/09 2015/16 2024/25 2038/39
Partnership Budget 9.9m 11.8m 14.8m 20.8m
8.11.10 Welsh Assembly Government Funding Support
8.11.11 As outlined at the beginning of this section, the Assembly Government is currently assessing
the all-Wales position with regards to financially supporting major infrastructure projects aimed
at reducing the current reliance Wales has on sending its residual waste to landfill.
8.11.12 The Assembly Government has advised that announcements are due shortly, however, in
order for the Partnership to move its OBC forward, Partnerships UK (advisors to the Assembly
Government) suggested that an appropriate element of financial support is modelled within the
Partnership’s Base Case. The level of financial support that has been modelled is based on
88
the level and type ( PFI revenue support grants) of support that DEFRA currently provides for
similar waste schemes in England.
8.11.13 The partnership’s financial advisors (Grant Thornton) have produced a funding profile for the
project based on the current methodology and guidance set-out by DEFRA.
8.11.14 The funding support calculation attached at Appendix 8i (Information redacted relating to the
financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the
Access to Information Procedure Rules), has been reviewed and signed-off by PUK as
conforming with the DEFRA approach. This equates to around 23.5% of the Contractor’s
Shadow Price and has a nominal cash value of £XXX million over the 25 year contract period.
Table 8.7 outlines the indicative overall support to the Partnership.
89
Table 8.7 Indicative Assembly Government Funding Support based on DEFRA methodology
Indicative Assembly Contractor’s Indicative
Government Funding Shadow Price Assembly %
Support (25yr Total) Government Equiv’
Annuity Nominal Funding Support Support
(Annual) (25yr Total)
Nominal
Partnership Total (£Xm) £XXXm (£XXXm) 23.5%

8.11.15 Unless specifically mentioned, affordability figures relating to the reference project are
inclusive of the funding support detailed within Appendix 8i (Information redacted relating to
the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the
Access to Information Procedure Rules). However, for clarity and to aid understanding of the
impact that the Assembly Government funding has to the business case, funding figures are
highlighted separately.
8.11.16 Results of the Affordability Modelling (Base Case)
8.11.17 The results of the affordability modelling are summarised in Table 8.8 and the text that follows
this table.
8.11.18 This initial analysis includes all costs directly related to the disposal/treatment of residual
waste e.g. non-domestic rates, but excludes all other costs e.g. collection costs, recycling &
composting etc.
8.11.19 The definitions of the results presented in Table 8.8 include:
Partnership Budget – the relevant percentage of the Partnership’s waste disposal budget in
proportion with the % of MSW of tonnage under Prosiect Gwyrdd
8.11.20 ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ – the “Do Minimum” option
‘Reference Project with High Recycling’ – the ‘reference technology example option’
resulting from the evaluation of short-listed options under the Economic Option Appraisal
exercise i.e. a 220,000 tpa EfW facility excluding CHP compatibility.
8.11.21 Comparison of Reference Project to Do Minimum – the difference between the two options
Budget Gap – the difference between the Partnership Budget and the ‘Landfill with High
Recycling’ option
Affordability Gap – the difference between the Partnership Budget and the ‘Reference
Project with High Recycling’
8.11.22 Results are presented in both Nominal (total "whole life" costs incorporating an assumed level
of inflation) and Net Present Value (NPV) terms over the full evaluation period. The evaluation
period of just under 32 years to 30th Nov 2039 represents the assumed time required to
procure, gain planning permission and build (4 years) the technology solution and the
anticipated 25 year concession period of a Design Build Finance Operate and Maintain
(DBFOM) contract used to deliver.
90
8.11.23 In order to aid comparisons all cashflows have been discounted to produce a Net Present
Value ("NPV") at March 2008 prices. The calculation of the NPV uses a nominal discount rate
of 6.09% (a real discount rate of 3.5% with inflation assumed to be 2.5% per annum).
8.11.24 Some of the assumptions used for affordability modelling purposes e.g. evaluation period may
differ to those used for the initial, high-level Economic Appraisal of short-listed options. This is
not uncommon as projects usually develop a clearer understanding of key issues as the
project progresses. In addition, the cash flow for 2015/16, the first full year operational date
for the facility has also been presented to provide annual context.
Table 8.8 Results of affordability Analysis applying Base Case assumptions

Total NPV 2015/16
Total Nominal
as at April (1st full yr)
Costs
2008 NOMINAL
£ Million
£ Million £ Million
Partnership Budget
471 195 11.81
(indexed from 2008/09)
Landfill with High Recycling ("Do Minimum") 1,147 427 23.99

Reference Project with High Recycling (before
X X X
Assembly Government Funding Support)
Assembly Government Funding Support (based on
X X X
DEFRA methodology)
Reference Project with High Recycling (net of Assembly
925 365 21.45
Government Funding Support)
Comparison of Reference Project to Do Minimum (222) (61) (2.54)
Budget Gap 675 232 12.18

Affordability Gap 453 170 9.64
8.11.25 The result of the affordability analysis shows that ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’
option has the lowest expected cost both in nominal terms (£925 million) and in Net Present
Value terms (£365 million). This results in a saving of £222 million in nominal terms and £61
million in NPV terms when compared to the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ option.
8.11.26 The aggregated Partnership Budget when compared against the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’
option results in a Budget Gap of some £675 million in nominal terms. The resultant
Affordability Gap is £453 million when compared with the costs of developing the Reference
Project option.
8.11.27 Given the magnitude of the ‘Gap’ that arises under both options, it is clear that partnering
authorities will face a significant financial challenge to manage their future residual waste
arrangements, irrespective of the final option that is chosen. In addition, these results assume
that the Assembly Government will provide direct funding support to the project, at least equal
to that which DEFRA provides to similar waste schemes in England. Clearly, the level and
nature of external support is crucial to the affordability argument of the Partnership pursuing
an option around developing a ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’.
91
8.11.28 Table 8.9 provides further details of the key cost drivers influencing the total net present value
of each option:
92
Table 8.9 Comparison of Key Drivers within each Option (NPV)
Landfill with High Reference Project

Recycling with High
Recycling
£ Million £ Million
Unitary Charge (Shadow Price) n/a X

Assembly Government Funding
0.0 X
Support
Landfill Tax + Gate Fee 408.1 113.0
LAS Fines 2.1 0.6

Transportation and Bulking Costs 16.6 23.1
Other Project costs (site acquisition,
0.0 16.1
procurement etc.)
Total Net Present Value 426.8 365.4
8.11.29 The costs of the Reference Project option show that whilst less tonnage is being sent to
landfill and therefore lower landfill gate fees and landfill tax are being paid, the costs of the
waste treatment technology are very significant cost.
8.11.30 The cost of the ‘Landfill with High Recycling’ option is primarily driven by the landfill tax
incurred as a result of higher tonnages sent to landfill, in the absence of treatment.
8.11.31 The level of fines that the partners incur under the Landfill with High Recycling option, are
relatively low at £2.1 million. This is due largely to the assumption that all partners will deliver
Recycling & Composting at levels of 65% included within the Assembly Government’s draft
policy on Recycling & Composting. The issues and risks of partners failing to deliver 65%
Recycling & Composting are looked at in more detail under the Project Scenarios later in this
section.
8.11.32 The chart below compares the nominal costs over time of the two options against the
Partnership’s waste disposal budget to identify both the ‘Budget Gap’ that will exist in future
years and Affordability Gap associated with implementing the ‘Reference Project with High
Recycling’ option.
93
Figure 8.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd Affordability Model – Partnership BASE CASE
£m per annum
60
Total Resources Available - NOMINAL
50 Landfill with High Recycling - NOMINAL
Reference Project with High Recycling - NOMINAL
40
30
Affordability
Gap
20
Budget Gap
10
0
2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 2014/15 2016/17 2018/19 2020/21 2022/23 2024/25 2026/27 2028/29 2030/31 2032/33
Year
8.12 Sensitivities
8.12.1 It is not possible to remove a number of inherent uncertainties behind the assumptions that
drive the affordability cost figures, particularly those that drive the Landfill with High Recycling
option. By establishing the impact of variations on key assumptions within the affordability
assessment, sensitivity analysis aims to determine whether the conclusions of the affordability
analysis are robust or if the conclusions are unduly sensitive to possible changes in key
assumptions. In addition they will also be used to give Members a range of potential costs of
the ‘Reference Project with High Recycling’ i.e. the likely ‘Affordability Envelope’ for the
Partnership.
8.12.2 Sensitivities have been run by flexing separately the key assumptions included in both the
shadow price and the Base Case affordability model and assessing the implications of such
changes. Table 8.10 sets out the key sensitivities that have been run.
Table 8.10 Sensitivity Tests on the Options being tested for affordability
Assumption included in Rationale
Sensitivity Run
Base Case Model
X X
Sensitivity 1: IRR 17%
X X
Sensitivity 2: Operating Cost + 10%
94
Assumption included in Rationale

Sensitivity Run
Base Case Model
X X
Sensitivity 3: Interest SWAP + 50
basis points
X X
Sensitivity 4: 1 year delay
X X
X X
X X
Sensitivity 7: Landfill tax @ £80/tonne
X X
Sensitivity 8: Landfill tax @
£100/tonne
Sensitivity 9: Landfill Gate Fee @ X X
£100/tonne
Sensitivity 10: Combined Landfill tax + X X
Gate Fee of £200/tonne
Sensitivity 11: Capital Cost + 20% X X
Sensitivity 12: NIL income from Sale X X
of Recyclates
X X
Sensitivity 13: Capital Cost +20% &
NIL Income from Recyclates
Sensitivity 14: Reject Rate @ 15% X X
8.12.3 Sensitivity Results
Table 8.11 sets out the results (in NPV terms) of the two options for the 14 individual sensitivities run.
Table 8.11 Results of Sensitivity Ananlysis (in NPV terms)

“Landfill with High
"Reference Project
Recycling ” Difference
with High
£ Million
Recycling”
£ Million
£ Million
X X
Base Case 426.8
Sensitivity 1 – 1RR 17% 426.8 X X

Sensitivity 2 – Op Ex +10% 426.8 X X
Sensitivity 3 – SWAP Rate +0.6% 426.8 X X
Sensitivity 4 – 1yr Delay 426.8 X X
Sensitivity 7 – Landfill Tax @ £80 469.1 X X
95
“Landfill with High

"Reference Project
Recycling ” Difference
with High
£ Million
Recycling”
£ Million
£ Million
Sensitivity 8 – Landfill Tax @ £100 496.8 X X
Sensitivity 9 – Gate Fee @ £100 440.8 X X
Sensitivity 10 – Combined Tax & Gate Fee 510.8 X X
@ £200/tonne
Sensitivity 11 – Cap Ex +20% 426.8 X X
Sensitivity 12 – Nil income Recyclates 426.8 X X
Sensitivity 13 – Cap Ex +20% plus Nil 426.8 X X
income from Recyclates
Sensitivity 14 – Reject Rate @ 15% 426.8 X X
8.12.4 The following graph compares the sensitivity results diagrammatically:
Figure 8.2: Graphical Representation of Sensitivity Results (in NPV terms)
8.12.5 X
8.12.5.1 X
8.12.5.2 X
8.12.5.3 X
8.12.5.4 X
8.12.5.5 X
8.12.5.6 X
8.12.5.7 X
8.12.6 X
8.12.7 X
8.12.8 In looking at the sensitivities it is worth noting that the Partnership has adopted prudent and
defendable assumptions within the Base Case model. A number of these key assumptions
will be resolved as the Partnership moves through the procurement process and will add an
element of certainty to the projected cost of the project.
96
8.13 Key risks

8.13.1 As detailed in Section 5, the Partnership has reviewed all key risks and documented these
within the Project Risk Register. The register includes a section on finance risks.
8.13.2 At present gaining Member approval of the affordability position remains a high risk due to the
uncertainties surrounding the level of financial support that may be available to the project.
This risk will be reduced once the Assembly Government has outlined its position regarding
funding availability.
8.13.3 Some of the other key financial and operational risks that the Partnership will need to manage
are explored further below.
8.13.4 Partnership’s exposure to Landfill Tax and the Landfill Allowance Scheme
8.13.5 The level of financial uncertainty over the cost of managing the Partnership’s residual waste
reduces once the facility becomes operational. This is due to a combination of risk transfer to
the contractor and reduced exposure to the impact of changes in Landfill tax and LAS fines.
The same is not true for the ’Landfill with High Recycling’ option where authorities remain
exposed to a wide range of uncertainties and potential costs associated with this option. The
UK government’s 12th March 2008, budget announced continuing increases in landfill tax
beyond the £48 per tonne level in 2010/11, but with no specified ceiling. Similarly no indication
has been given as to the future of LAS beyond 2020. In addition the potential exists for the
UK Government to pass onto Wales a share of infraction fines imposed by the EU on the UK
should the UK fail to meet its targets.
8.13.6 The sensitivity analysis performed looked at a number of changes to the cost of landfill, whilst
the Partnership continues to deliver 65% Recycling & Composting by 2019/20. In particular,
Sensitivity 10 looked at the combined impact of both Landfill Tax and Gate Fees increasing to
£200/tonne.
8.13.7 The partnership’s Technical Officers have a strong view that such an eventuality could be
realised in the very near future. Their views are based on the ever decreasing availability of
local landfill and the Government’s future policy on diverting further waste from landfill by
continuing to increase the Landfill Tax escalator.
8.13.8 The results of Sensitivity 10 are graphically represented below; the potential cost and risk of
utilising landfill in the future is clearly demonstrated.
97
Graph 3: Prosiect Gwyrdd Affordability Model – Sensitivity 10 (Combined Landfill Tax & Gate Fee @
£200/tonne)
8.13.9 The Sensitivities are predicated on partners delivering 65% Recycling & Composting, with
35% of the Partnership’s waste being either sent to landfill or treated through the Reference
facility. The next section looks at how the relative cost of the options change where Recycling
& Composting levels fall below the expected targets.
8.14 Project Scenarios Developed

8.14.1 In addition to the Base Case and sensitivities, the Partnership has carefully considered the
risk that partners may fail to achieve the 65% Recycling & Composting modelled within the
Base Case. This presents partners with a number of key issues to consider as part of the
procurement process, including the critical decision on the optimal level of plant capacity it
should look to procure.
8.14.2 To assist officers with such decisions and to inform members of the potential impact on the
options modelled within the Base Case, a number of project specific scenarios have been
developed to analyse the effect on the key cost drivers outlined in Table 8.7.
8.14.3 Within the Base Case, the Partnership has modelled that its primary objective is to meet the
Assembly Government’s draft Recycling & Composting targets, with the upper target of 65%
being met by 2019/20. Table 8.10 outlines the key target years and Recycling & Composting
targets modelled within the following scenarios:
Scenario 1a : Recycling & Composting reaches 58% with 35% of the Partnership’s Residual
Waste sent to the Reference Facility
Scenario 2a : Recycling & Composting reaches 50% with 35% of the Partnership’s Residual
Waste sent to the Reference Facility
Scenario 3a : Plant Capacity 265,000 tpa with 42% of the Partnership’s Residual Waste
sent to the Reference Facility
Table 8.12 Recycling & Composting Targets modelled
2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2019/20
Base Case 45% 52% 58% 65%

Scenario 1a 45% 52% 58% 58%
Scenario 2a 45% 50% 50% 50%
Scenario 3a 45% 52% 58% 58%
8.15 Results of Project Scenarios

8.15.1 Before the results of the scenarios are considered, it’s worth remembering the underlying
reason behind developing such scenarios. The Partnership is committed to delivering the
65% upfront Recycling & Composting targets that have been modelled within the Base Case.
98
However, ‘what if’ the actual Recycling & Composting performance falls short of this target
and the partners only reach the 58% or 50% target?
8.15.2 The project scenarios look at how the cost of each option may change under such scenarios
and therefore, each scenario should be treated as a discreet option in its own right. However,
if we look at the relative cost of scenario in terms of managing the whole of the residual waste
that remains once the Recycling & Composting performance has been taken into account,
then by assuming that all of ‘Balance of Waste’ is sent to landfill (once any available plant
capacity has been consumed), it is possible to attach a relative value to the options under
different Recycling & Composting scenarios.
8.15.3 This information provides the Partnership with the indicative cost of the options under these
scenarios and more importantly, it allows officers to draw conclusions around the way in which
key variables within each option ‘behave’ relative to one another if the Recycling &
Composting performance reduces.
99
8.15.4 Base Case, Scenario 1a and Scenario 2a Compared
Table 8.13 – Comparison of Key Drivers within Project Scenarios 1a and 2a (NPV)
Base
Case
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Base Case (65%
1a (58% 1a (58% 2a (50% 2a (50%
(65% R&C) R&C)
R&C) R&C) R&C) R&C)
Landfill Referen
Landfill Referenc Landfill Referenc
Option ce
Option e Option Option e Option
£ Millions Option
£ Millions £ Millions £ Millions £ Millions
£
Millions
Total Residual 6,848,0 7,659,000 7,659,00 8,817,000 8,817,000
6,848,000 t
Tonnage Managed 00 t t 0t t t
(35%)
(% of total MSW) (35%) (42%) (42%) (50%) (50%)
Unitary Charge (net

of Assembly
X £XXX X £XXX X £XXX
Government
Funding)
Landfill Tax + Gate
£XXX £XXX £XXX £XXX £XXX £XXX
Fee
LAS Fines £2.1 £0.6 £11.1 £0.6 £59.2 £1.1
Transportation and
£16.6 £23.1 £17.2 £24.2 £17.2 £24.2
Bulking Costs
Other (site
acquisition,
£0.0 £16.1 £0.0 £16.1 £0.0 £16.1
procurement costs
etc.)
Total NPV of
Managing 35% of £426.8 £365.4 £448.6 £368.7 £496.8 £366.1
Partnership MSW (a)
Cost of Managing
‘Additional’ Residual £53.0 £54.9 £91.6 £94.6 £169.8 £177.1
Waste to Landfill (b)
Total Cost of
Managing ALL
£479.8 £420.3 £540.2 £463.3 £666.6 £543.2
Residual Waste (a) +
(b)
8.15.5 Key findings:
Landfill Option
8.15.6 The cost of landfill disposal (Tax and Gate Fee) increases under both Scenarios 1a and 2a as
there is additional tonnage to manage as Recycling & Composting performance drops. Whilst
the cost under the project scope element (35% of residual waste) increases to £420.4m under
both scenarios, the cost of managing the additional (7% and 15% of MSW respectively), is
clearly highlighted under Scenario 1a at £91.6m and £169.8m for Scenario 2a;
100
8.15.7 LAS fines increase from the Base Case cost of £2.1m to £11.1m under Scenario 1a and
increase further to over £59m in Scenario 2a as the Partnership’s LAS allowances are
exceeded as additional residual waste is sent to landfill;
8.15.8 Scenarios 1a and 2a assume that landfill void for the additional residual waste will be readily
available. However, this raises an operational risk, given the projected reduction in landfill
void within South East Wales.
Reference Option
8.15.9 The Unitary Charge cost only increases slightly under both scenarios as the majority of the
additional tonnage is sent to landfill and not treated. This is because of the 35% of MSW cap
on EfW treatment;
8.15.10 All other costs within the project scope element are largely unaffected despite Recycling &
Composting performance dropping. In particular, the cost of LAS fines are only affected under
Scenario 2a (50% R&C), where they increase to around £1.1m;
8.15.11 As with the Landfill option, the cost of managing the additional waste to landfill increases
significantly under both scenarios at £94.6m (Scenario 1a) and £177.1m (Scenario 2a)
respectively.
8.15.12 The Reference option remains the lowest cost option under both scenarios when compared to
the Landfill option, when Recycling & Composting performance falls to 58% and 50% and the
Partnership is faced with managing the additional waste both within the spare capacity of the
facility with the balance being sent to Landfill.
8.15.13 The Reference Example option (220,000 tpa) provides relatively little protection from the
increased costs associated with having to manage the additional tonnage as Recycling &
Composting performance drops to 58% and 50% respectively. This is due to the capacity
being determined by the 35% EfW cap placed on reference example option.
Scenario 3a
8.15.14 Finally, the Partnership has explored the suitability of the Reference example option’s capacity
(220,000 tpa), under the 58% Recycling & Composting scenario. In doing so, a third Scenario
(3a) has been developed which increases capacity to 265,000 tpa and allows up to 42% of
MSW to be treated (an additional 7% when compared with Scenario 1a).
8.15.15 The cost of managing “project scope” waste (35% of MSW for Scenario 1a and 42% for
Scenario 3a ) and the cost of disposing of the additional waste that remains as Recycling &
Composting falls (“Balance of Waste to Landfill”) is detailed in Table 8.14 below.
Table 8.14 Scenarios 1a (220,000 tpa) and 3a (265,000 tpa) Compared (NPV)
Cost of Project Balance of Total Cost
Recycling & Scope Waste to
Composting Landfill
(a) (b) (c) (b + c)
Scenario 1a – Landfill Option Not
58% R&C 220,000 capacity Included £448.6 £91.6 £540.2
Scenario 1a – Reference Option
58% R&C 220,000 capacity Not £368.7 £94.6 £463.3
Included
Scenario 3a – Landfill Option
58% R&C 265,000 capacity Not £515.5 £24.8 £540.2
101
Included
Scenario 3a – Reference Option
58% R&C 265,000 capacity Not £413.0 £25.0 £438.0
Included
8.15.16 Key findings:
Given that the same amount of tonnage is being managed under both Scenarios, as expected
the ‘Total’ Landfill option costs are exactly the same at £540.2m. However, the cost of the
‘project scope’ element is lower under the Scenario 1a, where plant capacity is set at
220,000tpa, reflecting the 35% cap on residual waste being managed.
The analysis above shows that the Reference option has a lower expected cost than the
Landfill option under both Scenarios 1a and 3a at £463.3m and £438.0m respectively.
In addition, Scenario 3a with plant capacity procured at 265,000 tpa has the lower cost in
‘Total’ terms when both project scope waste (35%) and the waste arising from the reduction in
Recycling & Composting is managed in totality (42%). This shows that the efficiencies gained
in procuring a plant at 265,000 tpa more than off-set the cost of sending the ‘additional’ waste
to landfill should the Partnership’s recycling performance not exceed 58%.
8.15.17 Whole System costs
Each authority within the Partnership is aware of the challenges LAS targets present in terms
of the level of Recycling and Composting required. Partnering authorities will ensure that the
affordability issues of implementing systems to increase Recycling and Composting to levels
prescribed by the Assembly Government are clearly highlighted to Members when they are
considering the affordability envelope associated with Prosiect Gwyrdd. This will include the
implications to authorities of not reaching recycling targets generally, and in particular the cost
of treating residual waste in the early years that the ‘designed’ plant capacity will not
accommodate.
8.15.18 Member Approval of Affordability
It should be noted that at this stage the Partnership is unclear as to the Welsh Assembly
Government’s plans to financially support partnerships across Wales in relation to residual
waste treatment. Whilst this uncertainty exists the Partnership is only able to present Members
with an assumed affordability position for them to consider. It is hoped that over the coming
months this uncertainty will be removed and Members can then be presented with a clear and
final affordability position. At this stage the Outline Business Case will be submitted to WAG
in final draft form, including Members’ commitment to the assumed maximum affordability
issue, based on the assumed minimum WAG contribution previously discussed. Currently this
section of the Outline Business Case is identified as requiring an updated text in this respect
when the WAG provide the final funding structure
102
Section 9: Stakeholder Communications
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 Prosiect Gwyrdd is committed to deliver a structured programme of communication and
consultation with the public, to ensure effective, timely and consistent engagement with the
public and other key market stakeholders.
9.2 Strategy
9.2.1 Communication activities will involve a number of micro plans, however, the overall objectives
will remain and these are: -
Raising awareness of the work of Prosiect Gwyrdd and how its objectives are designed to
meet the local, national and European standards to all stakeholders; and
To engage with stakeholders and encourage them to be positive about the proposed work of
Prosiect Gwyrdd. This will build upon the wider sustainability issues being discussed at a
National and local government level
9.2.2 A group approach will also ensure uniformity of messages for the project. Ease of access to
information will be a critical factor during the early stages of the project to demonstrate
openness, accountability and transparency of the partnership and ensure the integrity of the
organisations involved is held in high esteem. A key action will be to engage and have an
open dialogue with those not in favour of the project’s goals in order to achieve a balanced
and documented route to achieve consensus about the project. Prosiect Gwyrdd also intends
to engage with the market.
9.2.3 The following key messages are to be included in all communication with stakeholders:
Project Gwyrdd is a partnership project between 5 local authorities in South East Wales;
Newport City Council, Monmouthshire County Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council,
Vale of Glamorgan Council and Cardiff County Council;
The combined municipal waste of the five authorities makes up 40% of the total municipal
waste of Wales;
Project Gwyrdd will ensure best value for Council Tax payers due to economies of scale of
five local authorities working together;
Project Gwyrdd is looking for the best environmental and sustainable option to deal with the
long-term solutions to residual waste; and
Project Gwyrdd will ensure that any form of residual waste treatment would operate under
strict environmental guidelines, which will be monitored via the licensing and planning
process.
9.3 TUPE and Code of Practice on Workforce Matters

9.3.1 At this stage it is not possible to determine whether TUPE will apply in relation to this
procurement. However, if TUPE does apply, the partner Authorities will ensure that throughout
the procurement process the rights of any staff affected by the project will be fully protected in
accordance with TUPE legislation.
9.3.2 This will include protection of their employment conditions and any collective agreement
conditions and trade union rights to representation and consultation. All relevant trade unions
will be consulted on all workforce issues that arise during the procurement process. In order to
103
facilitate this process a consultation framework will also be put in place with the relevant trade
unions. The partner Authorities recognise the importance of keeping all employees that may
be affected by the procurement fully informed in order to facilitate any proposed transfer.
Therefore, where appropriate any affected staff will be provided with timely information in
order to ensure that they are kept informed at all times of the changes that the procurement
may have on their future employment.
9.3.3 The partner Authorities will work with all concerned parties to facilitate the transfer of staff to
any new contractor.
9.3.4 The partner Authorities will in accordance with the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in
Local Authority Service Contracts monitor the Terms and Conditions of staff following the
award of the contract to ensure ongoing compliance. This monitoring will, in particular, ensure
that all existing pension rights and obligations are fully protected and adhered to by the
appointed contractor.
9.4 Market Interest

9.4.1 The Partner authorities undertook a soft market testing exercise in late 2006. A Prior
Information Notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) on
29th November 2006. At this time the Partnership comprised only Cardiff, Monmouthshire,
Newport and Vale of Glamorgan, with Caerphilly yet to join.
9.4.2 The PIN stated that the Partner authorities, working together as Prosiect Gwyrdd, were
looking for potential interest in a contract to provide treatment and disposal for an estimated
300,000 tonnes per annum of residual waste. It was recognised that a number of options for
treatment of residual waste exist in the market place and as such no definite view on
technology options was given.
9.4.3 Interested parties were asked to provide short written submissions outlining their potential
technical and commercial options to meet the requirements along with costs of similar
schemes by 20th December 2006. Twenty five responses were received of which twenty two
were technology providers. The proposed solutions included AD, MBT, MBT to SRF/RDF,
MBT to EfW, EfW, biogas production, gasification and pyrolysis. Four companies provided an
indication of capital costs, with a further four providing an indication of gate fees. The
remaining three interested parties were consultancies offering advice and a software
company. The exercise concluded that there was a keen market appetite and that the project
appeared to be highly marketable.
9.4.4 A full report of the findings can be found in Appendix 9a.
9.5 Other Relevant Authorities/ Public Engagement

9.5.1 The principal focus of the partnership thus far has been internal, although the Project and
individual authorities have engaged with external stakeholders and the public to an extent.
The partners recognise the need for comprehensive stakeholder/ Community groups
engagement, and the communications strategy will be the main vehicle for achieving this.
Similar considerations apply to engagement with neighbouring authorities and this has been
conducted through bodies such as the Connecting South East Wales Board and the SE Wales
Regional Waste Planning Group.
104
Section 10: Timetable
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 The main project stages have been considered by the Partnership and are shown at Appendix
10a. The timetable is divided into five key strands, namely: OBC period; initial bid phase;
competitive dialogue phase; selected bidder phase and contractor phase. The timetable has
assumed that the Welsh Assembly Government will approve the OBC and FBC for the Project
in the timeframe provided by the Assembly Government in their guidance.
10.1.2 The procurement timetable below is premised on the partnership obtaining a reference site,
initial technical appraisals of the site will be completed prior to commencement of the
competitive dialogue phase. It also assumes that when the preferred bidder is appointed, that
within 6-8 weeks of that appointment a full planning application will be made by the bidder to
the relevant planning authority, thereby it is expected that a full EIA will be developed during
the bidding phase of the project. The procurement process is shown as a competitive
dialogue and it provides time for planning application processes, including the completion of
an EIA. Financial close will not take place before a full planning permission is granted by the
relevant council with a commercial close anticipated to take place in 2011.
10.1.3 The timetable assumes that the project is fully resourced throughout and that project
governance is sufficiently robust so as to facilitate efficient decision making processes.
10.2 Managing Timetable Risks

10.2.1 The current project risk register is contained in Appendix 5a and is discussed in further detail
in Section 5: it contains all risks associated with time, costs and output delivery. The
timetable risks have assumed that the Welsh Assembly Government will be in a position to
approve the OBC and FBC in the timeframes provided in the Assembly Government’s draft
guidance.
10.2.2 As the procurement strategy permits bidders to potentially bring other site option to the table,
there is a possibility that that the preferred bidder solution contains a site under their own
ownership, in which case the bidder may have taken the commercial risk to apply for full
planning earlier in the competitive dialogue process prior to the profiled 2010 date included in
table 10.1 below.
10.2.3 The timetable is also premised upon the basis that the planning application will neither be
subject to inquiry or call-in and these points are addressed in the risk register and financial
section 8 when potential costs of such delays are discussed in the sensitivity analysis. In
summary there remains a residual timetable risk if planning is delayed by process beyond the
12 month period , impact evaluation of this risk up to a further 12, 24 and 36 months, tested in
cost sensitivities 6, 7 and 8 respectively. The construction and commissioning period for the
plant has been estimated and the programme includes an appropriate duration.
10.2.4 In light of the above the Partnership’s view is that the timetable is achievable. Prior to the
issue of the OJEU notice, five months has been allowed for the preparation of comprehensive
documentation so that bidders have full information from the start so as not to cause delay in
subsequent stages of the procurement dialogue. The evaluation methodology will also be
fully developed during this period. The procurement period is just over 24 months from
placing of OJEU to award of contract award that is believed to be adequate to complete the
competitive dialogue process.
105
10.2.5 Key dates on the programme are the OJEU notice release of March 2009 and the completion
of the competitive dialogue phase in October 2010 together with the financial close and
construction commencement for 2011, with operational commencement phase by April 2015.
Table 10.1 provides a summary of the key project milestones and Appendix 10a provides
further detailed of the estimated programme timelines.
10.3 Timetable
Table 10.1 Summary Project Delivery Timetable
NB Should the Welsh Assembly Government call in the planning application for determination, then
financial close is expected to be linked to the ultimate granting of planning permission by the Welsh
Assembly Government.
Output Date
Final Draft OBC submission to the Welsh Assembly Government Dec-08
Ministerial Approval of Funding 10.3.1 Oct-08
PUK Final Approval of OBC Jan-08
Final OBC approved by Council 10.3.2 Feb-08
OJEU Published Mar-09
PQQ &Descriptive Document Issued April-09
PQQ Evaluated Jun-09
Dialogue Commences & ISOS Issued Aug-09
ISOS Returned Oct-09
ISDS Issued Jan-10
ISDS Returned June-10
Close Dialogue & Call for Final Tenders Oct-10
Identification of preferred bidder Jan-11
Preferred Bidder Selected Jan-11
Submission of FBC Apr-11
Assembly Government Approval of FBC May-11
Commercial & Financial Close May-11
Planning Application Submitted Mar 11-

Construction, licensing and Commissioning Mar -12
Operational Commencement April 15
106
Appendices
Section 11: Appendices
107
Appendix 1
Appendix 1: Technical Advisor Letter
108
Appendix 2a
Appendix 2a: Waste Flow Tonnage Summary to 2035 with 65% Recycling
and Composting
Summary
Year Commencing April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Caerphilly
MSW Arisings 108,963 109,507 110,055 110,605 111,158 111,714 111,993 112,273 112,554 112,835 113,117 113,400 113,684 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968
MSW Recycling & Composting Rate (exc inerts) 23.1% 25.9% 25.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9% 27.9%
Total Residual Waste 75,000 72,298 72,659 70,943 71,297 71,654 71,833 72,012 72,192 72,373 72,554 72,735 72,917 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099 73,099
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -14,958 -10,558 -4,795 -203 5,117 10,437 15,644 17,032 18,421 19,808 21,197 22,585 23,974 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364 25,364
Cardiff
MSW Arisings 187,178 189,986 192,835 195,728 198,664 201,644 204,669 207,739 210,855 212,963 215,093 217,244 219,416 221,610 223,826 226,065 228,325 230,609 232,915 235,244 237,596 239,972 242,372 244,796 247,244 249,716 252,213 254,735 257,283 259,856
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -9,536 -13,782 -16,054 -26,805 -18,068 -9,322 -566 2,153 4,882 7,381 9,884 12,392 14,905 17,424 17,931 18,443 18,960 19,482 20,009 20,542 21,080 21,624 22,173 22,727 23,287 23,853 24,424 25,001 25,583 26,172
Monmouthshire
MSW Arisings 52,338 52,862 53,390 53,924 54,463 55,008 55,283 55,560 55,837 56,116 56,397 56,679 56,962 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247
Baseline BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -7,453 -5,449 -3,388 -1,147 1,349 3,846 6,246 6,921 6,396 8,271 8,948 9,623 10,301 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979 10,979
Newport
MSW Arisings 74,070 74,010 75,120 76,247 77,390 78,551 79,337 80,130 80,931 81,741 82,558 83,384 84,217 85,060 85,485 85,912 86,342 86,774 87,208 87,644 88,082 88,522 88,965 89,410 89,857 90,306 90,757 91,211 91,667 92,126
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -11,040 -10,568 -6,902 -3,217 653 4,530 8,272 9,422 10,575 11,732 12,791 14,053 15,218 16,386 16,539 16,693 16,848 17,004 17,160 17,317 17,475 17,634 17,793 17,954 18,115 18,277 18,439 18,603 18,767 18,932
Vale of Glamorgan
MSW Arisings 67,269 69,287 71,365 73,506 75,711 77,983 78,762 79,550 80,346 80,747 81,151 81,557 81,965 82,374 82,786 83,200 83,616 84,034 84,455 84,877 85,301 85,728 86,156 86,587 87,020 87,455 87,892 88,332 88,774 89,217
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -5,295 -5,908 -2,829 792 4,391 8,014 11,113 12,096 13,081 13,929 14,777 15,625 16,475 17,325 17,470 17,615 17,762 17,909 18,057 18,205 18,354 18,504 18,655 18,807 18,959 19,112 19,266 19,420 19,576 19,732
Combined
MSW Arisings 489,817 495,651 502,766 510,010 517,387 524,900 530,044 535,252 540,523 544,403 548,317 552,264 556,245 560,260 563,313 566,393 569,499 572,632 575,792 578,979 582,194 585,437 588,708 592,008 595,336 598,692 602,078 605,494 608,939 612,414
BMW Arisings 298,789 302,347 306,687 311,106 315,606 320,189 323,327 326,503 329,719 332,086 334,473 336,881 339,309 341,758 343,621 345,499 347,394 349,305 351,233 353,177 355,139 357,117 359,112 361,125 363,155 365,202 367,268 369,351 371,453 373,572
Caerphilly
MSW Arisings 108,963 109,507 110,055 110,605 111,158 111,714 111,993 112,273 112,554 112,835 113,117 113,400 113,684 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -14,958 -10,558 -4,795 -11,858 -6,596 -1,334 -5,895 -4,561 -3,227 -4,617 -3,289 -1,962 -634 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152
Cardiff
MSW Arisings 187,178 189,986 192,835 195,728 198,664 201,644 204,669 207,739 210,855 212,963 215,093 217,244 219,416 221,610 223,826 226,065 228,325 230,609 232,915 235,244 237,596 239,972 242,372 244,796 247,244 249,716 252,213 254,735 257,283 259,856
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -9,536 -13,782 -16,054 -26,805 -18,068 -9,322 -8,997 -6,405 -3,803 -8,754 -6,412 -4,067 -1,719 -7,607 -7,351 -7,092 -6,830 -6,565 -7,718 -7,462 -7,204 -6,944 -6,681 -6,415 -6,146 -5,875 -5,601 -5,324 -5,045 -4,763
Monmouthshire
MSW Arisings 52,338 52,862 53,390 53,924 54,463 55,008 55,283 55,560 55,837 56,116 56,397 56,679 56,962 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -7,453 -5,449 -4,332 -4,045 -2,582 -1,134 -2,816 -2,194 -2,772 -2,724 -2,110 -1,498 -884 -2,086 -2,094 -2,102 -2,110 -2,118 -2,257 -2,266 -2,274 -2,282 -2,290 -2,298 -2,306 -2,314 -2,322 -2,330 -2,338 -2,346
High Recycling Newport
& Composting MSW Arisings 74,070 74,010 75,120 76,247 77,390 78,551 79,337 80,130 80,931 81,741 82,558 83,384 84,217 85,060 85,485 85,912 86,342 86,774 87,208 87,644 88,082 88,522 88,965 89,410 89,857 90,306 90,757 91,211 91,667 92,126
Vale of Glamorgan
MSW Arisings 67,269 69,287 71,365 73,506 75,711 77,983 78,762 79,550 80,346 80,747 81,151 81,557 81,965 82,374 82,786 83,200 83,616 84,034 84,455 84,877 85,301 85,728 86,156 86,587 87,020 87,455 87,892 88,332 88,774 89,217
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -5,295 -5,908 -2,829 -1,977 -430 1,695 30 902 1,776 -478 298 1,075 1,851 774 836 898 961 1,024 149 208 267 326 386 446 507 568 629 690 752 814
Combined
MSW Arisings 489,817 495,651 502,766 510,010 517,387 524,900 530,044 535,252 540,523 544,403 548,317 552,264 556,245 560,260 563,313 566,393 569,499 572,632 575,792 578,979 582,194 585,437 588,708 592,008 595,336 598,692 602,078 605,494 608,939 612,414
BMW Arisings 298,789 302,347 306,687 311,106 315,606 320,189 323,327 326,503 329,719 332,086 334,473 336,881 339,309 341,758 343,621 345,499 347,394 349,305 351,233 353,177 355,139 357,117 359,112 361,125 363,155 365,202 367,268 369,351 371,453 373,572
Combined source sep recycling & composting 24.5% 30.2% 33.3% 42.4% 43.5% 44.6% 52.2% 52.2% 52.2% 58.1% 58.1% 58.1% 58.1% 64.2% 64.2% 64.2% 64.2% 64.2% 65.1% 65.1% 65.1% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2%
BMW of residual waste 212,466 191,968 180,806 142,421 138,862 135,804 106,538 107,554 108,582 90,654 91,276 91,904 92,536 74,712 75,078 75,446 75,818 76,193 73,165 73,525 73,888 74,255 74,624 74,997 75,373 75,752 76,134 76,520 76,909 77,302
109
Appendix 2a
Year Commencing April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
MSW Arisings 108,963 109,507 110,055 110,605 111,158 111,714 111,993 112,273 112,554 112,835 113,117 113,400 113,684 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968
Residual Waste Treated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,394 39,394 39,591 39,788 39,788 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876
Residual Waste to Landfill 75,000 72,298 72,659 57,704 57,992 58,073 46,703 46,820 7,543 1,426 1,331 1,236 1,339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cardiff
MSW Arisings 187,178 189,986 192,835 195,728 198,664 201,644 204,669 207,739 210,855 212,963 215,093 217,244 219,416 221,610 223,826 226,065 228,325 230,609 232,915 235,244 237,596 239,972 242,372 244,796 247,244 249,716 252,213 254,735 257,283 259,856
Monmouthshire
MSW Arisings 52,338 52,862 53,390 53,924 54,463 55,008 55,283 55,560 55,837 56,116 56,397 56,679 56,962 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247
Newport
MSW Arisings 74,070 74,010 75,120 76,247 77,390 78,551 79,337 80,130 80,931 81,741 82,558 83,384 84,217 85,060 85,485 85,912 86,342 86,774 87,208 87,644 88,082 88,522 88,965 89,410 89,857 90,306 90,757 91,211 91,667 92,126
High Recycling
& EfW (includes
treatment)
Vale of Glamorgan
MSW Arisings 67,269 69,287 71,365 73,506 75,711 77,983 78,762 79,550 80,346 80,747 81,151 81,557 81,965 82,374 82,786 83,200 83,616 84,034 84,455 84,877 85,301 85,728 86,156 86,587 87,020 87,455 87,892 88,332 88,774 89,217
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -5,295 -5,908 -2,829 -1,977 -430 1,695 30 902 -9,546 -10,992 -10,268 -9,545 -8,821 -9,760 -9,751 -9,741 -9,732 -9,722 -9,795 -9,786 -9,776 -9,767 -9,758 -9,748 -9,739 -9,729 -9,719 -9,710 -9,700 -9,690
Combined
MSW Arisings 489,817 495,651 502,766 510,010 517,387 524,900 530,044 535,252 540,523 544,403 548,317 552,264 556,245 560,260 563,313 566,393 569,499 572,632 575,792 578,979 582,194 585,437 588,708 592,008 595,336 598,692 602,078 605,494 608,939 612,414
BMW Arisings 298,789 302,347 306,687 311,106 315,606 320,189 323,327 326,503 329,719 332,086 334,473 336,881 339,309 341,758 343,621 345,499 347,394 349,305 351,233 353,177 355,139 357,117 359,112 361,125 363,155 365,202 367,268 369,351 371,453 373,572
Total Waste Treated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189,183 190,443 191,910 193,390 194,684 190,522 191,575 192,638 193,711 194,792 190,709 191,783 192,865 193,957 195,059 196,170 197,291 198,423 199,563 200,714 201,876 203,047
% MSW Treated 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
Recycling from treatment (% of MSW) if BA recycled 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%
Recycling from treatment (% of MSW) if BA not recycled 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Total MSW recycling & composting if BA recycled 24.5% 30.2% 33.3% 42.4% 43.5% 44.6% 52.2% 52.2% 59.2% 65.1% 65.1% 65.1% 65.1% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6% 71.6%
Total MSW recycling & composting if BA not recycled 24.5% 30.2% 33.3% 42.4% 43.5% 44.6% 52.2% 52.2% 54.1% 59.9% 59.9% 59.9% 59.9% 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 65.4% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4%
BMW to landfill from treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,134 11,617 11,700 11,784 11,857 12,232 12,290 12,347 12,405 12,464 12,191 12,248 12,306 12,364 12,423 12,482 12,542 12,602 12,663 12,724 12,786 12,849
Total BMW to landfill (including MSW outside project) 212,466 191,968 180,806 142,421 138,862 135,804 106,538 107,554 36,380 22,670 22,794 22,918 23,115 12,232 12,290 12,347 12,405 12,464 12,191 12,248 12,306 12,364 12,423 12,482 12,542 12,602 12,663 12,724 12,786 12,849
Caerphilly
MSW Arisings 108,963 109,507 110,055 110,605 111,158 111,714 111,993 112,273 112,554 112,835 113,117 113,400 113,684 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968
Cardiff
MSW Arisings 187,178 189,986 192,835 195,728 198,664 201,644 204,669 207,739 210,855 212,963 215,093 217,244 219,416 221,610 223,826 226,065 228,325 230,609 232,915 235,244 237,596 239,972 242,372 244,796 247,244 249,716 252,213 254,735 257,283 259,856
Monmouthshire
MSW Arisings 52,338 52,862 53,390 53,924 54,463 55,008 55,283 55,560 55,837 56,116 56,397 56,679 56,962 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247 57,247
Newport
High Recycling MSW Arisings 74,070 74,010 75,120 76,247 77,390 78,551 79,337 80,130 80,931 81,741 82,558 83,384 84,217 85,060 85,485 85,912 86,342 86,774 87,208 87,644 88,082 88,522 88,965 89,410 89,857 90,306 90,757 91,211 91,667 92,126
& MBT MSW Recycling & Composting Rate (exc inerts) 31.3% 36.2% 36.2% 40.1% 43.6% 47.1% 52.3% 52.3% 53.7% 59.7% 59.7% 59.7% 59.7% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 65.2% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3% 66.3%
(includes Total Residual Waste 49,984 46,051 46,742 44,594 42,611 40,558 36,950 37,320 37,693 33,272 33,605 33,941 34,280 29,880 30,029 30,180 30,331 30,482 29,699 29,848 29,997 30,147 30,298 30,449 30,602 30,755 30,908 31,063 31,218 31,374
treatment) Residual Waste Treated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,326 28,609 28,895 29,184 29,476 29,880 30,029 30,180 30,331 30,482 29,699 29,848 29,997 30,147 30,298 30,449 30,602 30,755 30,908 31,063 31,218 31,374
Vale of Glamorgan
MSW Arisings 67,269 69,287 71,365 73,506 75,711 77,983 78,762 79,550 80,346 80,747 81,151 81,557 81,965 82,374 82,786 83,200 83,616 84,034 84,455 84,877 85,301 85,728 86,156 86,587 87,020 87,455 87,892 88,332 88,774 89,217
BMW Shortfall (+) / Excess (-) against targets -5,295 -5,908 -2,829 -1,977 -430 1,695 30 902 -9,336 -10,907 -10,183 -9,460 -8,736 -9,686 -9,676 -9,666 -9,656 -9,646 -9,796 -9,787 -9,778 -9,768 -9,759 -9,749 -9,740 -9,730 -9,721 -9,711 -9,701 -9,692
Combined
MSW Arisings 489,817 495,651 502,766 510,010 517,387 524,900 530,044 535,252 540,523 544,403 548,317 552,264 556,245 560,260 563,313 566,393 569,499 572,632 575,792 578,979 582,194 585,437 588,708 592,008 595,336 598,692 602,078 605,494 608,939 612,414
BMW Arisings 298,789 302,347 306,687 311,106 315,606 320,189 323,327 326,503 329,719 332,086 334,473 336,881 339,309 341,758 343,621 345,499 347,394 349,305 351,233 353,177 355,139 357,117 359,112 361,125 363,155 365,202 367,268 369,351 371,453 373,572
Total Waste Treated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189,183 190,443 191,910 193,390 194,684 190,522 191,575 192,638 193,711 194,792 190,709 191,783 192,865 193,957 195,059 196,170 197,291 198,423 199,563 200,714 201,876 203,047
% MSW Treated 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
Recycling from treatment (% of MSW) including BA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
Recycling from treatment (% of MSW) excluding BA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Total MSW recycling & composting (including BA) 24.5% 30.2% 33.3% 42.4% 43.5% 44.6% 52.2% 52.2% 58.7% 64.5% 64.5% 64.5% 64.5% 69.9% 69.9% 69.9% 69.9% 69.9% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7% 70.7%
Total MSW recycling & composting (excluding BA) 24.5% 30.2% 33.3% 42.4% 43.5% 44.6% 52.2% 52.2% 54.2% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4%
BMW to landfill from treatment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,147 11,909 11,996 12,084 12,161 11,970 12,029 12,088 12,148 12,208 11,753 11,811 11,869 11,928 11,987 12,046 12,107 12,167 12,228 12,290 12,352 12,415
Total BMW to landfill (including MSW outside project) 212,466 191,968 180,806 142,421 138,862 135,804 106,538 107,554 37,393 22,962 23,090 23,219 23,419 11,970 12,029 12,088 12,148 12,208 11,753 11,811 11,869 11,928 11,987 12,046 12,107 12,167 12,228 12,290 12,352 12,415
Combined LAS allowance 260,747 238,233 215,718 192,978 171,233 149,491 127,747 122,311 118,073 111,438 106,102 100,567 95,131 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693 89,693
110
Appendix 2a
Caerphilly
Bring Bank Summary
Year commencing April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Glass 289 305 307 308 310 311 312 313 313 314 315 316 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317
Paper/card for recycling 520 479 481 484 486 489 490 491 492 494 495 496 497 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499 499
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 148 155 156 157 157 158 159 159 159 160 160 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161 161
Total 957 939 944 948 953 958 960 963 965 968 970 972 975 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977 977
Kerbside Summary
Glass 1,768 2,794 2,808 3,104 3,119 3,135 3,333 3,342 3,350 3,598 3,607 3,616 3,625 3,877 3,877 3,877 3,877 3,877 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119 4,119
% materials capture (ks&bb) 44.4% 66.6% 66.6% 72.6% 72.6% 72.6% 76.6% 76.6% 76.6% 81.6% 81.6% 81.6% 81.6% 86.6% 86.6% 86.6% 86.6% 86.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6% 91.6%
Paper/card for recycling 3,522 4,632 4,655 7,648 7,687 7,725 9,035 9,058 9,080 9,753 9,778 9,802 9,826 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508 10,508
Paper/card for composting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 430 674 677 681 684 687 1,034 1,036 1,039 1,736 1,740 1,745 1,749 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981 2,981
Plastics 638 1,158 1,164 1,559 1,567 1,575 2,368 2,374 2,380 3,977 3,987 3,997 4,007 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820 4,820
Textiles 0 0 0 136 137 137 276 276 277 556 557 558 560 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701 701
Green waste 3,427 3,515 3,533 3,550 3,568 3,586 3,595 3,604 3,613 3,622 3,631 3,640 3,649 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658
Other org (inc kitchen) 0 0 0 7,129 7,164 7,200 14,436 14,472 14,508 15,454 15,492 15,531 15,570 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527 16,527
Total 9,785 12,772 12,836 23,807 23,926 24,046 34,077 34,162 34,248 38,695 38,792 38,889 38,986 42,897 42,897 42,897 42,897 42,897 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314 43,314
Other Household Waste Summary

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% materials capture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cans/metals 35 35 35 60 61 92 92 92 92 123 124 124 124 187 187 187 187 187 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218
Plastics 104 104 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other org (inc kitchen) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 313 313 315 377 378 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453 453
WEEE 8 7 7 354 355 536 537 538 540 721 723 725 727 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729 729
Potentially hazardous 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Misc Comb 78 91 91 310 312 314 314 315 316 317 317 318 319 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320
Misc non-comb 139 139 140 140 141 142 142 143 143 143 144 144 144 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145
Total 782 793 797 1,452 1,460 1,676 1,680 1,684 1,689 1,910 1,915 1,920 1,925 2,056 2,056 2,056 2,056 2,056 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088 2,088
CA Household Waste Summary

Glass 0 0 0 195 196 197 247 248 248 348 349 350 351 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 377
Cans/metals 1,522 895 899 1,074 1,079 1,085 1,171 1,174 1,177 1,264 1,267 1,270 1,273 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362 1,362
Plastics 527 527 530 542 545 548 549 551 552 553 555 556 558 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559 559
Textiles 0 0 0 112 113 113 113 114 114 152 153 153 153 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308 308
Green waste 2,574 2,575 2,588 2,601 2,614 2,627 2,675 2,682 2,689 2,864 2,871 2,878 2,885 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063 3,063
Timber/wood 6,467 6,862 6,896 6,931 6,965 7,000 7,018 7,035 7,053 7,162 7,180 7,198 7,216 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660 7,660
WEEE 745 848 852 857 861 865 867 869 872 955 957 960 962 965 965 965 965 965 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021
Misc Comb 0 0 0 682 685 689 777 779 781 869 872 874 876 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229 1,229
Misc non-comb 6,112 6,580 6,613 6,646 6,679 6,713 6,729 6,746 6,763 6,780 6,797 6,814 6,831 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848 6,848
Total 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052 19,052
111
Appendix 2a
Caerphilly
Trade Waste Summary
Glass 456 481 483 528 531 534 535 536 538 539 540 542 543 635 635 635 635 635 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681 681
Paper/card for recycling 624 630 633 1,926 1,935 1,945 2,437 2,443 2,450 2,947 2,954 2,962 2,969 3,472 3,472 3,472 3,472 3,472 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720
Cans/metals 0 15 15 155 156 157 262 263 264 317 318 319 320 374 374 374 374 374 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
Plastics 0 0 0 201 202 203 305 306 307 513 514 515 517 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other org (inc kitchen) 1 2 2 747 751 755 1,261 1,264 1,267 1,398 1,401 1,405 1,408 1,797 1,797 1,797 1,797 1,797 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925 1,925
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,082 1,128 1,134 3,558 3,576 3,594 4,801 4,813 4,825 5,714 5,728 5,742 5,757 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 6,900 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348
Other non-Household Waste Summary

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 79 79 79 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
Plastics 75 75 75 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 492 359 361 363 364 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 404
Timber/wood 348 348 350 351 353 355 356 357 358 359 359 360 361 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 1,226 1,225 1,231 1,237 1,243 1,250 1,253 1,256 1,259 1,262 1,265 1,269 1,272 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275
Total 2,306 2,171 2,181 2,246 2,257 2,269 2,274 2,280 2,286 2,291 2,297 2,303 2,309 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345 2,345
Residual waste 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Household collected 50,219 47,554 47,792 37,124 37,310 37,496 27,619 27,688 27,757 23,464 23,523 23,582 23,641 19,887 19,887 19,887 19,887 19,887 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469 19,469
Other household 5,645 5,666 5,694 5,071 5,097 4,913 4,925 4,938 4,950 4,745 4,757 4,769 4,781 4,666 4,666 4,666 4,666 4,666 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634 4,634
CA Household 8,071 7,852 7,891 6,642 6,675 6,709 6,380 6,396 6,412 5,650 5,664 5,678 5,692 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350
Trade 10,000 10,009 10,059 7,691 7,729 7,768 6,589 6,605 6,622 5,762 5,776 5,791 5,805 4,691 4,691 4,691 4,691 4,691 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243 4,243
Other non-household 1,065 1,217 1,223 1,175 1,181 1,187 1,190 1,193 1,196 1,199 1,202 1,205 1,208 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180 1,180
Total 75,000 72,298 72,659 57,704 57,992 58,073 46,703 46,820 46,937 40,820 40,922 41,024 41,127 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876
TOTAL
Y/C April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Total MSW arisings 108,963 109,507 110,055 110,605 111,158 111,714 111,993 112,273 112,554 112,835 113,117 113,400 113,684 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968 113,968
BMW in MSW (61%) 66,467 66,800 67,134 67,469 67,807 68,146 68,316 68,487 68,658 68,830 69,002 69,174 69,347 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520 69,520
MSW Diverted through recycling & composting (t) 30,971 34,203 34,374 49,865 50,114 50,574 62,215 62,370 62,526 68,917 69,089 69,262 69,435 75,964 75,964 75,964 75,964 75,964 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962 76,962
BMW Diverted through recycling & composting (t) 19,596 21,063 21,168 34,114 34,285 34,456 44,281 44,391 44,502 47,337 47,456 47,574 47,693 51,282 51,282 51,282 51,282 51,282 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659 51,659
MSW source seg recycling & composting rate (exc inerts) 23.1% 25.9% 25.9% 40.8% 40.8% 41.0% 52.1% 52.1% 52.1% 58.0% 58.0% 58.0% 58.0% 64.0% 64.0% 64.0% 64.0% 64.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
MSW dry recycling rate (%) 16.8% 19.5% 19.5% 26.8% 26.8% 27.0% 30.6% 30.6% 30.6% 35.4% 35.4% 35.4% 35.4% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8% 40.8%
MSW food waste composting rate (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.3% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5%
MSW GW composting rate (%) 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7%
MSW total composting rate (%) 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 21.5% 21.5% 21.5% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2% 24.2%
MSW Residual (t) 75,000 72,298 72,659 57,704 57,992 58,073 46,703 46,820 46,937 40,820 40,922 41,024 41,127 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876 33,876
BMW residual (based on 61%) 46,871 45,737 45,965 33,355 33,522 33,690 24,035 24,095 24,155 21,492 21,546 21,600 21,654 18,238 18,238 18,238 18,238 18,238 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862 17,862
BMW Landfill allowance 61,829 56,295 50,760 45,213 40,118 35,024 29,930 28,656 27,382 26,109 24,835 23,562 22,288 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014 21,014
BMW LF Shortfall (+) / Surplus (-) -14,958 -10,558 -4,795 -11,858 -6,596 -1,334 -5,895 -4,561 -3,227 -4,617 -3,289 -1,962 -634 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -2,776 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152 -3,152
112
Appendix 2a
Cardiff
Bring Bank Summary
Glass 432 438 445 452 459 465 472 479 487 492 496 501 506 511 517 522 527 532 538 543 548 554 559 565 571 576 582 588 594 600 606 612 618 624 630
Paper/card for recycling 750 761 773 784 796 808 820 832 845 853 862 870 879 888 897 906 915 924 933 943 952 962 971 981 991 1,001 1,011 1,021 1,031 1,041 1,052 1,062 1,073 1,083 1,094
Cans/metals 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22
Plastics 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22
Textiles 100 102 103 105 106 108 109 111 113 114 115 116 117 118 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 131 132 133 135 136 137 139 140 142 143 144 146
Total 1,312 1,332 1,352 1,372 1,393 1,413 1,435 1,456 1,478 1,493 1,508 1,523 1,538 1,553 1,569 1,585 1,600 1,616 1,633 1,649 1,665 1,682 1,699 1,716 1,733 1,750 1,768 1,786 1,803 1,821 1,840 1,858 1,877 1,895 1,914
Kerbside Summary
Glass 3,975 4,558 4,627 4,696 4,766 4,838 5,729 5,815 5,902 6,387 6,451 6,515 6,580 6,646 6,713 6,780 6,848 6,916 6,985 7,055 7,126 7,197 7,269 7,341 7,415 7,489 7,564 7,640 7,716 7,793 7,871 7,950 8,029 8,110 8,191
Cans/metals 700 986 1,001 1,016 1,031 1,047 1,593 1,617 1,641 2,763 2,791 2,819 2,847 4,601 4,647 4,693 4,740 4,787 4,835 4,884 4,932 4,982 5,032 5,082 5,133 5,184 5,236 5,288 5,341 5,395 5,448 5,503 5,558 5,614 5,670
Plastics 865 1,618 1,642 1,667 1,692 1,717 3,485 3,538 3,591 6,044 6,105 6,166 6,228 7,548 7,623 7,699 7,776 7,854 7,933 8,012 8,092 8,173 8,255 8,337 8,421 8,505 8,590 8,676 8,763 8,850 8,939 9,028 9,119 9,210 9,302
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 174 177 357 361 364 368 1,115 1,127 1,138 1,149 1,161 1,563 1,579 1,595 1,610 1,627 1,643 1,659 1,676 1,693 1,710 1,727 1,744 1,761 1,779 1,797 1,815 1,833
Green waste 8,925 18,476 19,533 20,267 20,571 20,879 21,884 22,212 22,545 22,771 22,998 23,228 23,460 23,695 23,932 24,171 24,413 24,657 24,904 25,153 25,404 25,658 25,915 26,174 26,436 26,700 26,967 27,237 27,509 27,784 28,062 28,343 28,626 28,913 29,202
Other org (inc kitchen) 0 0 8,667 23,460 23,812 24,169 26,065 26,456 26,853 28,716 29,004 29,294 29,587 31,543 31,858 32,177 32,498 32,823 33,152 33,483 33,818 34,156 34,498 34,843 35,191 35,543 35,898 36,257 36,620 36,986 37,356 37,730 38,107 38,488 38,873
Total 22,840 38,186 48,206 64,033 64,993 65,968 75,149 76,276 77,421 86,731 87,598 88,474 89,359 97,103 98,074 99,055 100,045 101,046 102,447 103,472 104,506 105,551 106,607 107,673 108,750 109,837 110,935 112,045 113,165 114,297 115,440 116,594 117,760 118,938 120,127

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 115 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 115 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Glass 420 471 598 607 616 625 634 644 653 660 667 673 680 687 694 701 708 715 722 729 736 744 751 759 766 774 782 789 797 805 813 822 830 838 846
Cans/metals 690 520 1,004 1,223 1,242 1,260 1,492 1,515 1,537 1,553 1,568 1,584 1,600 1,731 1,748 1,766 1,784 1,801 1,819 1,838 1,856 1,875 1,893 1,912 1,931 1,951 1,970 1,990 2,010 2,030 2,050 2,071 2,091 2,112 2,133
Plastics 75 100 204 310 315 319 432 439 445 562 568 573 579 585 591 596 602 608 737 745 752 760 767 775 783 791 799 807 815 823 831 839 848 856 865
Textiles 70 105 106 144 146 148 226 229 233 235 237 240 242 408 412 416 420 424 428 433 437 441 446 450 455 459 464 468 473 478 483 487 492 497 502
Green waste 2,150 2,300 2,579 3,141 3,188 3,236 3,832 3,889 3,948 3,987 4,027 4,067 4,108 4,742 4,789 4,837 4,886 4,935 5,295 5,348 5,402 5,456 5,510 5,565 5,621 5,677 5,734 5,791 5,849 5,908 5,967 6,027 6,087 6,148 6,209
Timber/wood 117 286 726 2,210 2,244 2,277 2,697 2,737 2,778 2,806 2,834 2,862 2,891 3,337 3,370 3,404 3,438 3,472 3,726 3,764 3,801 3,839 3,878 3,916 3,956 3,995 4,035 4,075 4,116 4,157 4,199 4,241 4,283 4,326 4,369
WEEE 1,855 1,610 1,634 1,659 1,684 1,709 1,734 1,760 1,787 1,805 1,823 1,841 1,859 1,878 1,897 1,916 1,935 1,954 1,974 1,994 2,013 2,034 2,054 2,074 2,095 2,116 2,137 2,159 2,180 2,202 2,224 2,246 2,269 2,292 2,314
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,051 1,067 1,083 1,749 1,767 1,785 1,802 2,731 2,758 2,786 2,814 2,842 2,870 2,899 2,928 2,957 2,987 3,016 3,047 3,077 3,108 3,139 3,170 3,202 3,234 3,266 3,299 3,332 3,365
Misc non-comb 116 1,760 3,187 3,235 3,283 3,332 3,382 3,433 3,485 3,520 3,555 3,590 3,626 3,662 3,699 3,736 3,773 3,811 3,849 3,888 3,927 3,966 4,006 4,046 4,086 4,127 4,168 4,210 4,252 4,295 4,337 4,381 4,425 4,469 4,514
Total 6,823 8,840 12,166 14,688 14,909 15,132 17,784 18,050 18,321 19,273 19,465 19,660 19,857 22,350 22,574 22,799 23,027 23,258 24,144 24,385 24,629 24,875 25,124 25,375 25,629 25,885 26,144 26,406 26,670 26,936 27,206 27,478 27,753 28,030 28,310
113
Appendix 2a
Cardiff
Trade Waste Summary
Glass 80 400 406 485 492 499 633 643 653 791 799 807 815 1,029 1,039 1,049 1,060 1,071 1,081 1,092 1,103 1,114 1,125 1,136 1,148 1,159 1,171 1,183 1,194 1,206 1,218 1,231 1,243 1,255 1,268
Paper/card for recycling 350 1,200 1,218 2,331 2,366 2,401 3,656 3,711 3,766 6,340 6,404 6,468 6,532 9,237 9,329 9,422 9,517 9,612 10,401 10,505 10,610 10,716 10,824 10,932 11,041 11,152 11,263 11,376 11,489 11,604 11,720 11,838 11,956 12,076 12,196
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 445 452 609 615 621 627 1,109 1,120 1,131 1,142 1,154 1,249 1,261 1,274 1,287 1,299 1,312 1,326 1,339 1,352 1,366 1,379 1,393 1,407 1,421 1,435 1,450 1,464
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 852 864 877 1,182 1,193 1,205 1,217 1,844 1,863 1,881 1,900 1,919 1,938 1,958 1,977 1,997 2,017 2,037 2,058 2,078 2,099 2,120 2,141 2,163 2,184 2,206 2,228 2,250 2,273
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 430 1,600 3,280 6,848 6,951 7,055 10,500 10,658 10,817 14,041 14,182 14,323 14,467 18,927 19,116 19,307 19,500 19,695 20,669 20,875 21,084 21,295 21,508 21,723 21,940 22,160 22,381 22,605 22,831 23,059 23,290 23,523 23,758 23,996 24,236

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 89 90 91
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 3,543 3,146 3,193 3,241 3,290 3,339 3,389 3,440 3,492 3,526 3,562 3,597 3,633 3,837 3,875 3,914 3,953 3,993 4,033 4,073 4,114 4,155 4,197 4,239 4,281 4,324 4,367 4,411 4,455 4,499 4,544 4,590 4,636 4,682 4,729
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 30
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3,543 3,146 3,193 3,241 3,290 3,339 3,389 3,440 3,492 3,526 3,562 3,597 3,633 3,940 3,980 4,019 4,060 4,100 4,141 4,183 4,224 4,267 4,309 4,352 4,396 4,440 4,484 4,529 4,574 4,620 4,666 4,713 4,760 4,808 4,856
Residual waste 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Other household 9,316 9,502 9,645 9,790 9,937 10,086 10,237 10,390 10,546 10,652 10,758 10,866 10,974 11,084 11,195 11,307 11,420 11,534 11,650 11,766 11,884 12,003 12,123 12,244 12,366 12,490 12,615 12,741 12,868 12,997 13,127 13,258 13,391 13,525 13,660
CA Household 21,065 19,466 16,565 14,474 14,691 14,911 12,710 12,901 13,095 12,457 12,582 12,707 12,834 10,668 10,775 10,882 10,991 11,101 10,559 10,664 10,771 10,879 10,987 11,097 11,208 11,320 11,433 11,548 11,663 11,780 11,898 12,017 12,137 12,258 12,381
Trade 26,210 25,440 24,166 21,008 21,324 21,643 18,629 18,909 19,192 16,269 16,431 16,596 16,762 12,614 12,740 12,868 12,996 13,126 12,481 12,606 12,732 12,859 12,988 13,117 13,249 13,381 13,515 13,650 13,787 13,924 14,064 14,204 14,346 14,490 14,635
Total 152,115 136,812 124,568 105,474 107,056 108,662 96,337 97,782 99,248 87,821 88,699 89,586 90,482 77,656 78,432 79,216 80,009 80,809 79,796 80,594 81,400 82,214 83,036 83,866 84,705 85,552 86,407 87,271 88,144 89,026 89,916 90,815 91,723 92,640 93,567
TOTAL
Y/C April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
BMW in MSW (61%) 114,179 115,891 117,630 119,394 121,185 123,003 124,848 126,721 128,621 129,908 131,207 132,519 133,844 135,182 136,534 137,899 139,278 140,671 142,078 143,499 144,934 146,383 147,847 149,325 150,819 152,327 153,850 155,389 156,942 158,512 160,097 161,698 163,315 164,948 166,598
MSW Residual (t) 152,115 136,812 124,568 105,474 107,056 108,662 96,337 97,782 99,248 87,821 88,699 89,586 90,482 77,656 78,432 79,216 80,009 80,809 79,796 80,594 81,400 82,214 83,036 83,866 84,705 85,552 86,407 87,271 88,144 89,026 89,916 90,815 91,723 92,640 93,567
BMW LF against LAS Shortfall (+) / Surplus (-) -9,536 -13,782 -16,054 -26,805 -18,068 -9,322 -8,997 -6,405 -3,803 -8,754 -6,412 -4,067 -1,719 -7,607 -7,351 -7,092 -6,830 -6,565 -7,718 -7,462 -7,204 -6,944 -6,681 -6,415 -6,146 -5,875 -5,601 -5,324 -5,045 -4,763 -4,478 -4,190 -3,899 -3,605 -3,309
114
Appendix 2a
Monmouthshire
Bring Bank Summary
Glass 547 552 560 566 571 577 580 583 586 589 592 595 598 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601 601
Cans/metals 28 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45 47 48 50 51 53 54 56 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 80
Plastics 82 83 87 91 95 99 103 106 110 114 118 121 125 129 132 136 139 142 145 149 152 155 158 162 165 168 171 175 178 181 184 188 191 194 197
Textiles 93 94 96 97 99 101 103 104 106 107 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 128 129 130 131 132 133
Total 1,066 1,077 1,102 1,125 1,149 1,174 1,192 1,211 1,230 1,249 1,268 1,288 1,308 1,327 1,341 1,354 1,367 1,380 1,394 1,407 1,420 1,434 1,447 1,460 1,473 1,487 1,500 1,513 1,526 1,540 1,553 1,566 1,579 1,593 1,606
Kerbside Summary
Glass 1,476 1,523 1,538 1,553 1,569 1,584 1,592 1,600 1,608 1,616 1,625 1,633 1,641 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649 1,649
Cans/metals 204 247 250 420 424 428 431 433 435 728 732 736 739 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 320 322 324 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626 1,626
Textiles 49 53 72 81 82 83 84 84 84 188 189 190 191 192 192 192 192 192 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
Green waste 6,405 6,500 6,750 7,000 7,250 7,500 7,538 7,575 7,613 7,651 7,689 7,728 7,766 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831 7,831
Total 10,951 11,518 12,579 14,330 15,470 16,627 20,273 20,375 20,477 22,034 22,144 22,255 22,366 25,290 25,290 25,290 25,290 25,290 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663 25,663

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Glass 283 285 288 291 294 297 298 300 301 303 304 306 307 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309
Cans/metals 920 929 938 948 957 967 972 977 981 1,034 1,040 1,045 1,050 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055 1,055
Plastics 61 62 80 121 122 123 165 166 167 210 211 212 213 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214
Textiles 23 23 24 24 24 24 29 29 29 44 44 44 44 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Green waste 1,713 1,730 1,748 1,765 1,783 1,801 1,810 1,819 1,828 1,837 1,846 1,855 1,865 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874 1,874
Timber/wood 0 0 285 431 435 440 589 592 595 1,196 1,202 1,208 1,214 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221
WEEE 371 375 379 456 461 466 468 470 473 633 637 640 643 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646 646
Misc Comb 1 1 78 78 79 80 322 323 325 653 656 659 663 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999
Misc non-comb 0 0 416 421 425 429 1,294 1,300 1,307 1,751 1,760 1,768 1,777 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786 1,786
Total 4,129 4,170 5,007 5,320 5,373 5,427 6,750 6,784 6,818 8,480 8,522 8,565 8,607 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084 9,084
115
Appendix 2a
Monmouthshire
Trade Waste Summary
Glass 0 0 0 30 31 31 31 31 31 42 42 42 43 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Cans/metals 0 0 0 38 38 38 39 39 39 52 52 53 53 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
Plastics 0 0 0 73 74 74 75 75 76 101 102 102 103 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 625 631 637 856 860 865 1,128 1,134 1,140 1,145 1,233 1,233 1,233 1,233 1,233 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 356 359 363 367 370 374 376 378 380 381 383 385 387 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 356 359 363 367 370 374 376 378 380 381 383 385 387 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389 389
Residual waste 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Other household 1,817 1,835 1,853 1,872 1,891 1,909 1,919 1,929 1,938 1,948 1,958 1,968 1,977 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987 1,987
CA Household 7,155 7,227 6,504 6,307 6,370 6,433 5,169 5,195 5,221 3,619 3,637 3,656 3,674 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259 3,259
Trade 2,382 2,405 2,429 1,829 1,848 1,866 1,659 1,668 1,676 1,425 1,432 1,440 1,447 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,372 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265 1,265
Other non-household 672 679 686 692 699 706 710 713 717 721 724 728 732 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735 735
Total 35,806 35,707 34,309 32,127 31,439 30,739 25,804 25,920 26,037 22,812 22,913 23,014 23,116 19,891 19,878 19,865 19,852 19,838 19,345 19,331 19,318 19,305 19,292 19,278 19,265 19,252 19,239 19,225 19,212 19,199 19,185 19,172 19,159 19,146 19,132
TOTAL
Y/C April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
BMW in MSW (61%) 31,926 32,246 32,568 32,894 33,223 33,555 33,723 33,891 34,061 34,231 34,402 34,574 34,747 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921 34,921
MSW Residual (t) 35,806 35,707 34,309 32,127 31,439 30,739 25,804 25,920 26,037 22,812 22,913 23,014 23,116 19,891 19,878 19,865 19,852 19,838 19,345 19,331 19,318 19,305 19,292 19,278 19,265 19,252 19,239 19,225 19,212 19,199 19,185 19,172 19,159 19,146 19,132
BMW LF against LAS Shortfall (+) / Surplus (-) -7,453 -5,449 -4,332 -4,045 -2,582 -1,134 -2,816 -2,194 -2,772 -2,724 -2,110 -1,498 -884 -2,086 -2,094 -2,102 -2,110 -2,118 -2,257 -2,266 -2,274 -2,282 -2,290 -2,298 -2,306 -2,314 -2,322 -2,330 -2,338 -2,346 -7,123 -7,131 -7,139 -7,147 -7,155
116
Appendix 2a
Newport
Bring Bank Summary
Glass 132 136 138 140 142 144 146 147 149 150 152 153 155 156 157 158 159 159 160 161 162 163 163 164 165 166 167 168 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 234 274 278 282 287 291 294 297 300 303 306 309 312 315 316 318 320 321 323 324 326 328 329 331 333 334 336 338 339 341 343 344 346 348 350
Kerbside Summary
Glass 3,080 3,350 3,400 3,492 3,545 3,598 3,634 3,670 3,707 3,744 3,782 3,819 3,858 4,156 4,177 4,198 4,219 4,240 4,261 4,282 4,304 4,325 4,347 4,368 4,390 4,412 4,434 4,456 4,479 4,501 4,524 4,546 4,569 4,592 4,615
Cans/metals 727 790 802 871 884 897 906 915 924 1,120 1,131 1,143 1,154 1,457 1,464 1,472 1,479 1,486 1,494 1,501 1,509 1,516 1,524 1,532 1,539 1,547 1,555 1,562 1,570 1,578 1,586 1,594 1,602 1,610 1,618
Plastics 1,167 1,350 1,370 1,391 1,412 1,433 1,859 1,878 1,896 2,394 2,418 2,442 2,467 2,990 3,005 3,020 3,035 3,050 3,065 3,081 3,096 3,112 3,127 3,143 3,158 3,174 3,190 3,206 3,222 3,238 3,254 3,271 3,287 3,303 3,320
Textiles 360 370 376 381 387 393 397 401 405 409 413 417 421 665 669 672 675 679 682 686 689 692 696 699 703 706 710 714 717 721 724 728 732 735 739
Green waste 5,260 8,000 8,120 8,403 8,529 8,657 8,743 8,831 8,919 9,248 9,341 9,434 9,528 10,624 10,677 10,730 10,784 10,838 10,892 10,946 11,001 11,056 11,111 11,167 11,223 11,279 11,335 11,392 11,449 11,506 11,564 11,621 11,680 11,738 11,797
Total 16,151 19,843 20,140 22,966 25,770 28,654 32,757 33,085 33,416 37,230 37,603 37,979 38,359 42,107 42,318 42,529 42,742 42,955 43,170 43,386 43,603 43,821 44,040 44,260 44,482 44,704 44,928 45,152 45,378 45,605 45,833 46,062 46,292 46,524 46,756

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Glass 67 112 114 115 117 119 120 121 122 129 130 131 132 134 134 135 136 137 137 138 139 139 140 141 141 142 143 143 144 145 146 146 147 148 149
Cans/metals 942 835 848 860 873 886 895 904 913 922 931 941 950 960 964 969 974 979 984 989 994 999 1,004 1,009 1,014 1,019 1,024 1,029 1,034 1,039 1,045 1,050 1,055 1,060 1,066
Plastics 49 35 36 44 44 45 46 46 46 94 95 96 97 163 164 164 165 166 167 168 169 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 175 176 177 178 179 180 181
Textiles 98 110 112 113 115 117 118 119 120 121 123 124 125 126 127 128 128 129 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189
Green waste 1,815 1,250 1,269 1,288 1,307 1,327 1,340 1,353 1,367 1,434 1,449 1,463 1,478 1,586 1,594 1,602 1,610 1,618 1,721 1,730 1,739 1,747 1,756 1,765 1,774 1,783 1,792 1,801 1,810 1,819 1,828 1,837 1,846 1,855 1,864
Timber/wood 327 440 447 453 460 467 472 476 481 490 495 500 505 510 513 515 518 520 523 526 528 531 533 536 539 541 544 547 550 552 555 558 561 564 566
WEEE 345 500 508 515 523 531 536 541 547 552 558 563 569 575 578 580 583 586 589 592 595 598 601 604 607 610 613 616 619 622 626 629 632 635 638
Misc Comb 145 150 152 155 157 159 161 162 164 536 542 547 552 1,116 1,122 1,127 1,133 1,138 1,602 1,610 1,618 1,626 1,634 1,642 1,650 1,659 1,667 1,675 1,684 1,692 1,701 1,709 1,718 1,726 1,735
Misc non-comb 1,310 1,780 1,807 1,834 1,861 1,889 1,908 1,927 1,946 1,966 1,986 2,005 2,026 2,046 2,056 2,066 2,077 2,087 2,097 2,108 2,118 2,129 2,140 2,150 2,161 2,172 2,183 2,194 2,205 2,216 2,227 2,238 2,249 2,260 2,272
Total 5,477 5,462 5,544 5,653 5,738 5,824 5,882 5,941 6,000 6,660 6,727 6,794 6,862 7,741 7,780 7,818 7,858 7,897 8,568 8,610 8,653 8,697 8,740 8,784 8,828 8,872 8,916 8,961 9,006 9,051 9,096 9,141 9,187 9,233 9,279
117
Appendix 2a
Newport
Trade Waste Summary
Glass 164 190 193 196 199 202 204 206 208 229 231 234 236 257 258 259 261 262 263 264 266 267 268 270 271 272 274 275 277 278 279 281 282 284 285
Paper/card for recycling 282 250 254 376 382 387 391 395 399 1,008 1,018 1,028 1,038 1,468 1,476 1,483 1,490 1,498 1,613 1,621 1,629 1,637 1,645 1,654 1,662 1,670 1,679 1,687 1,695 1,704 1,712 1,721 1,730 1,738 1,747
Cans/metals 0 0 0 30 30 30 31 31 31 63 64 65 65 154 154 155 156 157 169 170 171 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
Plastics 0 0 0 57 58 59 60 60 61 123 124 125 127 170 171 172 173 174 306 307 309 310 312 313 315 317 318 320 321 323 325 326 328 329 331
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 446 440 447 753 956 1,166 1,374 1,388 1,402 2,133 2,154 2,175 2,197 2,787 2,801 2,815 2,829 2,844 3,162 3,177 3,193 3,209 3,225 3,242 3,258 3,274 3,290 3,307 3,323 3,340 3,357 3,373 3,390 3,407 3,424

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 38 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 51 51
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 1,740 1,900 1,929 1,957 1,987 2,017 2,037 2,057 2,078 2,098 2,119 2,141 2,162 2,184 2,195 2,206 2,217 2,228 2,239 2,250 2,261 2,273 2,284 2,295 2,307 2,318 2,330 2,342 2,353 2,365 2,377 2,389 2,401 2,413 2,425
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,778 1,940 1,969 1,998 2,028 2,059 2,079 2,100 2,121 2,142 2,164 2,186 2,207 2,229 2,241 2,252 2,263 2,274 2,286 2,297 2,309 2,320 2,332 2,343 2,355 2,367 2,379 2,391 2,403 2,415 2,427 2,439 2,451 2,463 2,476
Residual waste 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Other household 1,245 1,264 1,283 1,302 1,321 1,341 1,355 1,368 1,382 1,396 1,410 1,424 1,438 1,452 1,460 1,467 1,474 1,482 1,489 1,496 1,504 1,511 1,519 1,527 1,534 1,542 1,550 1,557 1,565 1,573 1,581 1,589 1,597 1,605 1,613
CA Household 5,631 3,538 3,591 3,619 3,674 3,729 3,766 3,804 3,842 3,280 3,313 3,346 3,379 2,603 2,616 2,629 2,642 2,655 2,037 2,048 2,058 2,068 2,078 2,089 2,099 2,110 2,120 2,131 2,142 2,152 2,163 2,174 2,185 2,196 2,207
Trade 3,719 3,751 3,807 3,565 3,426 3,283 3,119 3,150 3,181 2,496 2,521 2,546 2,572 2,029 2,039 2,050 2,060 2,070 1,777 1,786 1,794 1,803 1,812 1,822 1,831 1,840 1,849 1,858 1,868 1,877 1,886 1,896 1,905 1,915 1,924
Total 49,984 46,051 46,742 44,594 42,611 40,558 36,950 37,320 37,693 33,272 33,605 33,941 34,280 29,880 30,029 30,180 30,331 30,482 29,699 29,848 29,997 30,147 30,298 30,449 30,602 30,755 30,908 31,063 31,218 31,374 31,531 31,689 31,847 32,007 32,167
TOTAL
Y/C April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
BMW in MSW (61%) 45,183 45,146 45,823 46,510 47,208 47,916 48,395 48,879 49,368 49,862 50,360 50,864 51,373 51,886 52,146 52,407 52,669 52,932 53,197 53,463 53,730 53,999 54,269 54,540 54,813 55,087 55,362 55,639 55,917 56,197 56,478 56,760 57,044 57,329 57,616
MSW Residual (t) 49,984 46,051 46,742 44,594 42,611 40,558 36,950 37,320 37,693 33,272 33,605 33,941 34,280 29,880 30,029 30,180 30,331 30,482 29,699 29,848 29,997 30,147 30,298 30,449 30,602 30,755 30,908 31,063 31,218 31,374 31,531 31,689 31,847 32,007 32,167
BMW LF against LAS Shortfall (+) / Surplus (-) -11,040 -10,568 -6,902 -5,873 -4,695 -3,591 -3,531 -2,499 -1,465 -4,211 -3,312 -2,211 -1,209 -3,286 -3,231 -3,176 -3,120 -3,064 -3,549 -3,495 -3,441 -3,387 -3,333 -3,278 -3,223 -3,168 -3,113 -3,057 -3,001 -2,944 -2,888 -2,831 -2,774 -2,716 -2,659
118
Appendix 2a
Vale of Glamorgan
Bring Bank Summary
Glass 734 756 779 802 826 851 859 868 877 881 885 890 894 899 903 908 912 917 922 926 931 935 940 945 950 954 959 964 969 973 978 983 988 993 998
Paper/card for recycling 933 961 990 1,020 1,050 1,082 1,092 1,103 1,114 1,120 1,126 1,131 1,137 1,143 1,148 1,154 1,160 1,166 1,171 1,177 1,183 1,189 1,195 1,201 1,207 1,213 1,219 1,225 1,231 1,237 1,244 1,250 1,256 1,262 1,269
Cans/metals 81 83 86 89 91 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 109 109 110 110
Plastics 313 322 332 342 352 363 366 370 374 376 378 379 381 383 385 387 389 391 393 395 397 399 401 403 405 407 409 411 413 415 417 419 421 423 426
Textiles 184 190 195 201 207 213 215 218 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 236 237 238 239 240 242 243 244 245 246 248 249 250
Total 2,245 2,312 2,382 2,453 2,527 2,603 2,629 2,655 2,681 2,695 2,708 2,722 2,735 2,749 2,763 2,777 2,791 2,805 2,819 2,833 2,847 2,861 2,875 2,890 2,904 2,919 2,933 2,948 2,963 2,978 2,992 3,007 3,022 3,038 3,053
Kerbside Summary
Glass 1,854 1,910 1,967 2,026 2,087 2,149 2,188 2,210 2,232 2,430 2,443 2,455 2,467 2,670 2,683 2,697 2,710 2,724 2,738 2,751 2,765 2,779 2,793 2,807 2,821 2,835 2,849 2,863 2,877 2,892 2,906 2,921 2,935 2,950 2,965
Cans/metals 333 343 353 442 455 469 473 478 483 971 975 980 985 1,485 1,493 1,500 1,508 1,515 1,523 1,530 1,538 1,546 1,553 1,561 1,569 1,577 1,585 1,593 1,601 1,609 1,617 1,625 1,633 1,641 1,649
Plastics 995 1,025 1,056 1,208 1,244 1,282 1,294 1,307 1,320 1,592 1,600 1,608 1,616 2,707 2,721 2,735 2,748 2,762 2,776 2,790 2,804 2,818 2,832 2,846 2,860 2,874 2,889 2,903 2,918 2,932 2,947 2,962 2,977 2,991 3,006
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 530 4,746 4,888 5,035 5,186 5,342 5,395 5,449 5,504 5,531 5,559 5,587 5,615 6,003 6,033 6,063 6,093 6,124 6,154 6,185 6,216 6,247 6,278 6,310 6,341 6,373 6,405 6,437 6,469 6,501 6,534 6,566 6,599 6,632 6,665
Total 8,180 12,626 13,412 16,781 19,255 21,186 26,115 26,376 26,640 30,181 30,332 30,484 30,636 33,548 33,716 33,885 34,054 34,224 35,334 35,511 35,689 35,867 36,046 36,227 36,408 36,590 36,773 36,957 37,141 37,327 37,514 37,701 37,890 38,079 38,270

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 1,130 1,164 1,199 1,235 1,272 1,310 1,323 1,336 1,350 1,356 1,363 1,370 1,377 1,384 1,391 1,398 1,405 1,412 1,419 1,426 1,433 1,440 1,447 1,455 1,462 1,469 1,476 1,484 1,491 1,499 1,506 1,514 1,521 1,529 1,537
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 68 70 72 74 77 79 80 80 81 82 82 82 83 83 84 84 85 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 92
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,198 1,234 1,271 1,309 1,348 1,389 1,403 1,417 1,431 1,438 1,445 1,452 1,460 1,467 1,474 1,482 1,489 1,497 1,504 1,512 1,519 1,527 1,534 1,542 1,550 1,558 1,565 1,573 1,581 1,589 1,597 1,605 1,613 1,621 1,629

Glass 74 76 79 81 83 86 87 88 88 222 223 224 225 368 370 372 374 376 378 379 381 383 385 387 389 391 393 395 397 399 401 403 405 407 409
Paper/card for recycling 388 400 412 424 437 450 454 459 463 744 748 752 755 1,234 1,240 1,246 1,252 1,259 1,265 1,271 1,278 1,284 1,290 1,297 1,303 1,310 1,316 1,323 1,330 1,336 1,343 1,350 1,356 1,363 1,370
Cans/metals 1,125 1,159 1,194 1,229 1,266 1,304 1,317 1,330 1,344 1,350 1,357 1,364 1,371 1,378 1,385 1,391 1,398 1,405 1,412 1,419 1,427 1,434 1,441 1,448 1,455 1,463 1,470 1,477 1,485 1,492 1,500 1,507 1,515 1,522 1,530
Plastics 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 177 178 179 180 289 291 292 294 295 297 298 300 301 303 304 306 307 309 310 312 313 315 317 318 320 321
Textiles 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 74 75 75 75 151 152 153 154 154 155 156 157 157 158 159 160 161 161 162 163 164 165 165 166 167 168
Green waste 2,858 2,944 3,032 3,123 3,217 3,313 3,346 3,380 3,414 3,431 3,448 3,465 3,482 3,500 3,517 3,535 3,553 3,570 3,588 3,606 3,624 3,642 3,660 3,679 3,697 3,716 3,734 3,753 3,772 3,791 3,809 3,829 3,848 3,867 3,886
Timber/wood 2,406 2,478 2,553 2,629 2,708 2,789 2,817 2,845 2,874 2,888 2,903 2,917 2,932 2,946 2,961 2,976 2,991 3,006 3,021 3,036 3,051 3,066 3,082 3,097 3,112 3,128 3,144 3,159 3,175 3,191 3,207 3,223 3,239 3,255 3,272
WEEE 534 550 567 584 601 619 625 631 638 670 673 676 680 956 961 966 971 976 980 985 990 995 1,000 1,005 1,010 1,015 1,020 1,025 1,031 1,036 1,041 1,046 1,051 1,057 1,062
Misc Comb 118 121 125 128 132 136 138 139 140 690 693 697 700 1,408 1,415 1,422 1,429 1,436 1,443 1,451 1,458 1,465 1,473 1,480 1,487 1,495 1,502 1,510 1,517 1,525 1,532 1,540 1,548 1,556 1,563
Misc non-comb 3,251 3,349 3,449 3,552 3,659 3,769 3,806 3,845 3,883 3,902 3,922 3,942 3,961 3,981 4,001 4,021 4,041 4,061 4,082 4,102 4,122 4,143 4,164 4,185 4,206 4,227 4,248 4,269 4,290 4,312 4,333 4,355 4,377 4,399 4,421
Total 10,896 11,222 11,559 11,906 12,263 12,631 12,757 12,885 13,014 14,273 14,344 14,416 14,488 16,390 16,472 16,555 16,637 16,721 16,804 16,888 16,973 17,058 17,143 17,229 17,315 17,401 17,488 17,576 17,664 17,752 17,841 17,930 18,020 18,110 18,200
119
Appendix 2a
Vale of Glamorgan
Trade Waste Summary
Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Glass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cans/metals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Textiles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Timber/wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WEEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc non-comb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residual waste 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Other household 3,003 3,093 3,186 3,281 3,380 3,481 3,516 3,551 3,587 3,605 3,623 3,641 3,659 3,677 3,696 3,714 3,733 3,751 3,770 3,789 3,808 3,827 3,846 3,865 3,885 3,904 3,924 3,943 3,963 3,983 4,003 4,023 4,043 4,063 4,083
CA Household 6,785 6,989 7,198 7,414 7,637 7,866 7,944 8,024 8,104 6,951 6,985 7,020 7,055 5,261 5,287 5,313 5,340 5,367 5,393 5,420 5,447 5,475 5,502 5,530 5,557 5,585 5,613 5,641 5,669 5,698 5,726 5,755 5,783 5,812 5,841
Trade 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other non-household 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 44,750 41,892 42,741 41,057 40,318 40,174 35,859 36,217 36,580 32,160 32,321 32,483 32,645 28,220 28,361 28,503 28,645 28,788 27,993 28,133 28,274 28,415 28,557 28,700 28,844 28,988 29,133 29,278 29,425 29,572 29,720 29,868 30,018 30,168 30,319
TOTAL
Y/C April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
BMW in MSW (61%) 41,034 42,265 43,533 44,839 46,184 47,569 48,045 48,526 49,011 49,256 49,502 49,750 49,998 50,248 50,500 50,752 51,006 51,261 51,517 51,775 52,034 52,294 52,555 52,818 53,082 53,348 53,614 53,882 54,152 54,423 54,695 54,968 55,243 55,519 55,797
MSW Residual (t) 44,750 41,892 42,741 41,057 40,318 40,174 35,859 36,217 36,580 32,160 32,321 32,483 32,645 28,220 28,361 28,503 28,645 28,788 27,993 28,133 28,274 28,415 28,557 28,700 28,844 28,988 29,133 29,278 29,425 29,572 29,720 29,868 30,018 30,168 30,319
BMW LF against LAS Shortfall (+) / Surplus (-) -5,295 -5,908 -2,829 -1,977 -430 1,695 30 902 1,776 -478 298 1,075 1,851 774 836 898 961 1,024 149 208 267 326 386 446 507 568 629 690 752 814 876 939 1,002 1,065 1,129
120
Appendix 2b
Appendix 2b: Summary of Partner Municipal

Waste Management Services
Caerphilly
Collected weekly, 99% of households are provided with wheeled

Residual waste
bins
96% of households are covered.

Approximately 35% of households have recyclates collected
weekly, 65% fortnightly; consideration is being given to rolling out
the weekly service borough-wide.
Recyclate Most fortnightly collected recyclates are sorted at the kerbside –

paper, plastic bottles, textiles, glass, cans, engine oil and filters;
with the balance of fortnightly plus all weekly collected recyclates
being sorted at a third party MRF.
29 bring sites are provided across the County Borough.
6 HWRCs are provided across the County Borough.
Fortnightly green waste collection service is provided to

approximately 73,000 households (97%) over 26 weeks of the
Organics year.
Collection of tree/hedge cuttings is available by appointment.
Bulky waste Collection of bulky household items and fridges/freezers is carried

out via a booking system.
Weekly residual waste collections to approximately 2,200 trade

customers.
A commercial waste recycling service is also provided to
Trade waste
customers collecting glass, cans and cardboard.
Received funding to pilot a commercial food waste collection
service from October 2008.
Residual waste is disposed at one of two sites: Trecatti landfill

Disposal site, Merthyr Tydfil, operated by Biffa Waste Services or Silent
Valley landfill site, Ebbw Vale, operated by Blaenau Gwent’s
LAWDC (Silent Valley Waste Services).
Contract for the provision and management of a waste transfer

station at Full Moon, Crosskeys, Risca and landfilling of waste at
Silent Valley, Ebbw Vale. Earliest contract expiry August 2010.
Contract with Silent Valley Waste Services for the management
and servicing of 2 HWRCs (Penmaen, Blackwood and Full Moon,
Contractual Arrangements
Crosskeys). Earliest contract expiry August 2009.
In-house management of 4 Civic Amenity Sites (Rhymney,
Aberbargoed, Penallta and Trehir).
Arrangements are in place with Silent Valley Waste Services and
Biffa Waste Services for disposal of residual waste at Silent Valley
121
Appendix 2b
Caerphilly
and Trecatti landfill sites, respectively.
Windrow composting contracted to Bryn Quarry Ltd for source
segregated garden waste at its site in Gelligaer.
Contract for recycling/composting of HWRC wood waste held by
Bryn Quarry Ltd.
Wood collected at HWRCs for recovery is sent to Slough Heat and
Power.
Arrangement with Bryn Quarry Ltd for the recycling of CA site
hardcore.
Arrangement with Amber Services Ltd for further processing of
HWRC residual waste and bulky household waste to extract
recyclables.
A number of recycling contracts related to bring recycling material
streams.
Cardiff
Weekly residual waste collection is provided to all households.

Residual waste 80% of households use black wheeled bins, the remaining 20%
(terraced houses) use black plastic sacks.
Fortnightly collection of co-mingled recyclates.

100% of households are covered, using a green bag.
Materials include paper, glass, cans, plastic bottles and plastic
containers.
Recyclate 86 bring sites are provided.
4 HWRCs are provided, one of which is currently being re-built. A
further site is planned for completion by March 2010.
The Council owns and operates a MRF at Lamby Way for sorting
of recyclates.
Fortnightly garden waste collection is provided to all households

using green wheeled bin or bio bags to terraced houses etc
Organics Food waste collections will be rolled out across the County from
2008/09, combined with green waste.
The Council is developing its own in-vessel composting facilities
which are due to be operational by 2009.
A dedicated trade waste collection round is employed to around

3,000 premises.
Trade waste
The council is carrying out trials on trade recycling and food waste
collections.
All residual waste is currently disposed at Lamby way landfill site;

Disposal
this is due to close towards the end of 2008.
122
Appendix 2b
Cardiff
Currently in procurement of short term disposal contract with Vale
of Glamorgan.
Contractual Arrangements All waste and recycling services are managed by the Council.
Monmouthshire
Residual waste Collected weekly using black bags provided by residents.
Kerbside sorted collection, incorporating paper, cans, glass and

textiles operated by Monmouth Community Recycling.
Kerbside recycling service is provided weekly to 70% of
households from a black box.
Recyclate The remaining 30% of properties receive a weekly paper only
collection, operated by Excel Industries.
28 bring sites are provided.
4 HWRCs are provided; 2 of which are adjacent to transfer
stations and due to be upgraded towards the end of 2009.
Weekly kerbside green waste service provided to 90%

households; this collection also allows some cardboard.
Collection is either free of charge using starch bags or charged at
£1 for larger dumpy bags available through local outlets;
Organics considering using only dumpy bag collection in future.
Additional food and kitchen waste collection provided to 7,000
garden waste customers; this is co-mingled with green waste.
Food waste collection service is currently being rolled-out across
the County.
Collected weekly.
Trade waste
Collection is via pre-paid green sacks or charged per wheeled bin.
Disposal All residual waste is disposed via transfer stations at Abergavenny

and Caerwent and disposed to landfill in Wiltshire.
HWRCs, transfer stations and landfill arrangements are operated
by Dragon Waste Ltd, a joint venture between the Council and
Viridor Waste Management.
Recyclates are currently collected by Monmouth Community
Recycling and Excel Industries; the Council is considering
Contractual Arrangements streamlining this service across the County.
Contract held with Wormtech Ltd for processing of green waste
(open windrow) and kitchen and garden waste (IVC) at Caerwent.
The organics collection service is carried out in-house.
Residual waste is collected by Monmouthshire’s in-house DSO.
123
Appendix 2b
Newport
Collected fortnightly from majority of households in a green

Residual waste
wheeled bin.
Collected weekly
97% of households are covered;
Material is collected by Newport Wastesavers in two boxes and
sorted at the kerbside.
Paper, textiles, mobile phones and toner cartridges are collected
Recyclate in the blue box.
Metals, glass and plastic bottles are collected in the green box.
Plastics and cans undergo additional sorting at the Cleanstream
Depot in Cwmbran.
1 HWRC is provided, adjacent to the Docks Way landfill site.
60% properties covered by fortnightly garden and cardboard

collection, using orange lidded wheeled bin.
Organics Organic waste is collected on alternate weeks to residual waste.
A trial kitchen waste collection scheme will commence in March
2008.
Residual –[ number of customers]
Trade waste
Recycling – [materials & customers]
Disposal The Council owns and operates its own landfill at Docks Way.
Kerbside recycling operated by Newport Wastesavers through a

Contractual Arrangements Service Level Agreement
All other services operated in-house by the Council.
124
Appendix 2b
Vale of Glamorgan
Collected weekly from all households in black sacks provided by

the Council.
Residual waste Have carried out a trial of wheeled bins across a small area –
1,000 properties in Dinas Powys & Barry – no plans to extend this
trial.
Recyclates are collected weekly, with different material types

collected on alternate weeks.
Paper, glass and cans are collected one week; cardboard and
Recyclate plastic the next.
Recyclates are sorted at Biffa’s Viking Road MRF in Cardiff.
2 HWRCs are provided.
Green waste is collected from the kerbside using reusable green

bags or biodegradable sacks on fortnightly on the same day as
the cardboard and cans collection, spring, summer and autumn.
Organics During winter month there is a ring and request service using
biodegradable sacks only.
Collection is via pre-paid biodegradable sacks (£1 for 3), or re-
usable bags (£1 each).
Residual waste from commercial customers is collected as a
mixed load with domestic black bag collections by the same
Trade waste vehicles.
Recyclates from commercial customers is collected with
household recycling kerbside collections in mixed loads.
Residual waste is taken to Biffa Bessemer Close transfer station,
Cardiff, prior to disposal at Trecatti Landfill, Merthyr Tydfil.
Disposal
The Council is currently procuring a joint residual waste disposal
contract with Cardiff Council.
All collection services are provided in-house by the Council.

Disposal and recycling contract held with Biffa Waste Services,
expires 31st March 2008.
Contractual Arrangements Contract held with EWC to dispose, recycle and compost waste
st
from the 2 HWRCs; due to expire 31 March 2008.
Kerbside collected green waste is composted at Penllyn Farm,
Cowbridge. This contract expires in March 2009.
125
Appendix 3a
Appendix 3a: Summary of Partner Municipal

Waste Management Strategies
Summary of Partner Municipal Waste Management Strategies
Caerphilly Strategic aims for the period 2004/05 to 2006/07:
Continually improve the services we provide in terms of efficiency, reliability and

customer focus.
Adhere to the waste hierarchy in our management of waste issues.
Divert 25% BMW from landfill by 2010 and start to make preparations for the
later Landfill Directive targets of 50% diversion by 2013 and 65% diversion by
2020.
Recycle and compost a minimum of 15% MSW by 2003/04, 25% by 2006/07 and
40% by 2009/10.
Improve awareness raising programmes to reach a greater proportion of the
population of Caerphilly County Borough.
Increase participation rates in the kerbside recycling scheme and boost capture
rates.
Reduce the amount of waste that CCBC generates and set up schemes for the
recycling and composting of council waste.
Make provision for the collection of special wastes at civic amenity sites.
Work closely with partners in all sectors to attain sustainable waste management.
Continue to consult and communicate with residents and other stakeholders on
matters of service delivery.
The full strategy document explains the technical method of estimating the waste
management requirements of the future, and calculating the way to achieve the
Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). Six Options are proposed,
central to which are the waste management facilities that may be required to
treat/dispose of the wastes expected to arise. The key facilities explored are:
- mechanical biological treatment (MBT)
- thermal treatment and
- landfill.
The possible combinations of facilities (‘Options’) are assessed by their
sustainability, followed by a consultation with stakeholders and the public. The
Regional Waste Plan provides broad guidelines for local authorities to follow, and
at this stage is not facility-specific.
Cardiff Published in 2005, the Strategy for Cardiff is as follows:
Expansion of recycling, composting and reuse schemes for municipal waste such
that the Welsh Assembly Government targets for each of the target years of 2006/07
and 2009/10 are met. Recycling and composting levels will increase to at least 50%
by the year 2013.
This is broadly in line with the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and
Sustainable Waste Management Option (SWMO) identified for the South-East. The
strategy provides a detailed plan for managing Cardiff's municipal waste to 2010,
although consideration is also given to the requirements to 2020.
The strategy for Cardiff will comprise a number of key elements, as follows:
Waste minimisation is central to slowing down the rate of waste growth in

Cardiff, and this will be a priority for the Council over the next few years.
Continued development of kerbside collection schemes for dry recyclable and
126
Appendix 3a

organic (compostable) materials. It will be necessary to accelerate the schemes
over the early years of the period of the strategy in order to achieve the level of
diversion required to meet the targets.
Enhancement and expansion of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre
(HWRC – formally known as civic amenity sites) provision across the Authority to
facilitate improved access to the principal population centres and increased
diversion of materials for recycling and reuse. This will include further upgrading
of existing facilities and the provision of at least three additional HWRCs, making
a total of five sites with improved geographic coverage and adequate segregation
Enhancement of the existing network of ‘Bring’ points, to include the provision
of a number of strategically located communities based recycling centres,
particularly focusing on those inner-city areas where implementation of kerbside
collection schemes is likely to prove difficult. It is intended that there would be up
to 50 ‘Bring’ points in total by 2006/07.
Seeking to maintain, and where appropriate, expand partnerships with
community groups and voluntary sector organisations.
Development and expansion of windrow composting facilities for green waste.
Developing infrastructure for the in-vessel composting of kerbside collected
kitchen derived organic wastes in line with the Animal By-products Regulations.
Development and expansion of Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF)
infrastructure and services to deal with recyclable materials diverted at the
kerbside and at HWRCs and ‘Bring’ points.
Identifying appropriate markets for reuse and reprocessing of materials
segregated from the municipal waste stream (where possible and practicable
these should be locally based).
Identifying appropriate handling and treatment infrastructure for residual
waste (i.e. materials that are not segregated for recycling and composting).
Further treatment of residual waste will be required by 2010, or soon thereafter in
order to meet the European Union Landfill Directive biodegradable municipal
waste (BMW) diversion targets. It should be noted that there will be a need for
the disposal to landfill of some residual municipal wastes over the full duration of
the strategy. The quantity of waste sent to landfill will reduce significantly up to
2010 and beyond. Future landfill capacity will therefore need to be secured to
ensure continuity of disposal for these residues on completion of the Lamby Way
landfill, which is expected around 2010, and also to provide for the disposal of
industrial and commercial waste generated in Cardiff.
This strategy will need to be subject to consultation so as to reflect the concerns
and priorities of the local community whilst at the same time meeting the
objectives of ‘Wise about Waste’.
Monmouthshire Monmouthshire produced its Municipal Waste Management Strategy in 2004. The
preferred strategy for Monmouthshire, which is in line with the Best Practicable
Environmental Option (BPEO) and Sustainable Waste Management Option (SWMO)
identified for the South East Region of Wales, is as follows:
Expansion of recycling and reuse schemes for municipal waste such that the waste
strategy targets for each of the target years of 2003/04, 2006/07 and 2009/10 are
met and in fact exceeded. All residual waste would be sent to a Mechanical
Biological Treatment plant. Continued landfill of waste residues will be required.
The strategy focuses on meeting specific targets set over the next 16 years but,
realistically, cannot look in detail anywhere near this far ahead. Changes in
legislation, taxation and attitudes to waste, dictate that a regular review of detail will
be necessary every 3 years.
The strategy for Monmouthshire will comprise a number of key elements, as follows:
127
Appendix 3a

Waste minimisation is central to reducing the amount of waste produced in
Monmouthshire, and this will be a priority for the Council over the next few years.
Continued development of the kerbside collection schemes for dry recyclable and
organic (compostable) materials. It will be necessary to develop the schemes over
the period up to 2009/10 in order to achieve the level of diversion required to meet
the targets.
Enhancement of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre (HWRC or ‘civic

amenity site’) provision across the Authority to facilitate improved access to the
principal population centres and increased diversion of materials for recycling and
reuse.
Enhancement of the existing network of ‘Bring Sites’, to include the provision of a
number of strategically located community based recycling centres.
Seeking to maintain, and where appropriate, expand partnerships with community
groups.
Development of in-County composting facilities for green waste.

Developing infrastructure for the in-vessel composting of kerbside collected kitchen
derived organic wastes in line with the Animal By Products Regulations.
Development of Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) infrastructure and services to

deal with recyclable materials diverted at the kerbside and at HWRCs and ‘Bring
Sites’.
Identifying appropriate markets for the reuse and reprocessing of materials

segregated from the municipal waste stream (where possible and practicable these
should be locally based).
Identifying appropriate waste handling and treatment infrastructure for residual waste
(i.e. materials that are not segregated for recycling and composting). Further
treatment of residual waste will be required by 2010, or soon thereafter in order to
meet the European Union Landfill Directive targets.
It should be noted that there will be a need for the disposal to landfill of some
residual wastes over the full duration of the strategy. The quantity of waste sent to
landfill will reduce significantly up to 2010 and beyond. Future landfill capacity will
therefore need to be secured.
Newport In March 2004 Newport City Council published its Waste Management Strategy,
which sets out current waste management services, and Newport’s strategy for
working towards national and European waste targets. In accordance with national
guidance, the strategy aims to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and sets
out targets and practices for more environmentally sustainable waste management
methods in Newport. It builds upon established working methods including public
awareness campaigns, and re-use and recycling initiatives such as Newport’s
Rethink Rubbish Campaign, home composting initiatives and its recycling
partnership with Newport Waste Savers.
Strategic Objectives:
a) To operate Newport City Council’s waste management techniques according to
the principle of a waste ‘hierarchy,’ by prioritising operations according to their
environmental impact (this is in line with international, European Union and the
Welsh Assembly Government policies).
b) To incorporate waste minimisation in the forward plans for departments within the
Authority and to ensure that in providing services to the community and business, all
departments take account of the need to promote sustainable management of waste.
c) To ensure that producers within the authority and in the city are made responsible
128
Appendix 3a

for their waste products.
d) To ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of as close as possible to where it
has been produced and so reduce the environmental impact of its transportation.
e) To ensure that the pre-treatment and final deposit of waste is carried out in a
manner that minimises risks to the environment.
f) To ensure that waste management activities conform to, and where appropriate,
promote the Council’s Corporate Themes in respect of Sustainable Development,
Social Inclusion and Equal Opportunities.
g) To ensure that the standards prescribed in relevant legislation and formal
guidance shall form the minimum standards adopted by Newport City Council in
dealing with municipal waste.
h) To set targets and monitor performance in implementing the Council’s Waste
Management Strategy (see section 2.2).
i) To undertake and publish an annual review of the Strategy, it’s policies and targets
for waste management.
j) To work with all stakeholders in promoting these strategic objectives.
Vale of The preferred strategy (2004) , which is in line with the Best Practicable
Glamorgan Environmental Option (BPEO) and Sustainable Waste Management Option (SWMO)
identified for the South East Region of Wales, is as follows:
Expansion of recycling and reuse schemes for municipal waste such that the waste
strategy targets for each of the target years of 2006/07 and 2009/10 are met and in
fact exceeded. All residual waste would be sent to a Mechanical Biological
Treatment plant. Continued landfill of waste residues will be required.
The strategy for the Vale of Glamorgan will comprise a number of key elements, as
follows:
Waste minimisation is central to reducing the amount of waste produced in the Vale,
and this will be a priority for the Council over the next few years.
Continued development of the kerbside collection scheme for dry recyclable and
organic (compostable) materials. It will be necessary to develop the scheme over the
period up to 2009/10 in order to achieve the level of diversion required to meet the
targets.
Enhancement of the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) provision across

the Authority to facilitate improved access to the principal population centres and
increased diversion of materials for recycling and reuse. This will include
replacement of the two existing civic amenity sites in Sully and Llandow.
Enhancement of the existing network of ‘Bring Sites’, to include the provision of a

number of strategically located community based recycling centres.
Development of waste handling and treatment facilities within the context of a ‘Waste
Resource Park’, to include the following:
Provision of a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) to deal with recyclable materials

diverted at the kerbside and at HWRCs and ‘Bring Sites’.
Development of an ‘in-vessel’ composting facility for the treatment of kerbside

segregated organic materials (including green waste and organic kitchen
wastes). This will need to be in place to meet the 2006/07 and 2009/10
composting targets of 10% and 15%, respectively.
Provision of facilities for the local reuse and reprocessing of materials segregated
from the municipal waste stream.
Provision of a new HWRC to replace the existing civic amenity site in Sully.
129
Appendix 3a
Provision of a waste transfer facility for residual waste (i.e. materials that are not
segregated for recycling or composting).
Possible provision, in the medium to long term (by 2010, or soon thereafter), of a
residual waste treatment facility.
The continued use of small scale farm-based open windrow composting in the
short term for green wastes. Open windrow techniques will also be required for
further maturation of the product from the ‘in-vessel’ facility.
It should be noted that there will be a need for the disposal to landfill of some
residual wastes over the full duration of the strategy. The quantity of waste sent
to landfill will reduce significantly up to 2010 and beyond. Future landfill capacity
will therefore need to be secured.
130
Appendix 3b
Appendix 3b: Status of Partner Authorities’

Waste Local Development Plans
Caerphilly County Borough Council
UDP - Approved April 2003
Waste Specific Policies
W1 – The development of sites for waste management facilities will be permitted unless their siting will
have a detrimental effect on:
Sites or areas designated for protection for nature conservation reasons;
Special landscapes areas or green wedges;
Areas of archaeological or historic interest;
Sensitive uses such as housing, recreational and tourist attractions.
W4 – Development of facilities for the re-use or recovery of waste materials will be permitted where:
The adjoining road network is or can be made suitable for heavy lorries without prejudicing
highway safety, or having a harmful impact on rural roads;
The site can be screened and landscaped to reduce adverse visual impact;
Adequate provision is made for restoration of the site to a beneficial after use in the event of the
facility being no longer required.
The waste collected by the Council is primarily disposed of at the Trehir landfill north of Caerphilly which
has remaining capacity to about 2003. A contractual agreement is in place until 2009 to dispose of waste
at Silent Valley in Blaenau Gwent County Borough, Phase 1 of which has an estimated life of 6 years.
Whilst there is no contractual agreement, waste generated in the northern part of the Rhymney Valley is
disposed of at the Trecatti landfill site in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough with an estimated capacity of 32
years at present tipping rates. Disposal at Trecatti complies with the proximity principle, as it is adjacent
to and partly within the County Borough boundary. Disposal at Trehir will cease during the plan period
and an alternative disposal option must therefore be found. A number of site options have been examined
in detail by the former councils and all were found to have environmental problems which made them
either unacceptable or uneconomic for landfill. Preliminary re-assessment of those sites showed that the
situation has not changed. Therefore, no specific site allocations for landfill are made in the UDP.
Cardiff Council
UDP - Approved for deposit 25th September 2005
Policy 1.P: Waste Management
Waste arising from Cardiff will be managed within the county by:
a. promoting and supporting additional treatment facilities, measures and strategies that represent
the best practicable environmental option, having regard to the waste hierarchy and the proximity
principle;
b. supporting a continued but reducing rate of landfill at Lamby Way, together with recycling and
civic amenity facilities;
c. encouraging facilities for the re-use and management of other waste by its producer as close as
environmentally practicable to its point of origin;
d. supporting the provision and maintenance of sustainable waste management facilities in all
appropriate new developments; and
e. supporting waste minimisation and the provision of facilities that use recycled or composted
products.
131
Appendix 3b
The current arrangements in Cardiff for dealing with municipal waste are based on continued landfill at
Lamby Way (which at current input rates has sufficient capacity until at least 2010), supplemented by
community based recycling schemes and civic amenity facilities. There is likely to be a need to identify
additional land beyond that currently committed for the treatment and disposal of municipal waste during
the plan period. However, in order to meet locally the targets set by the National Waste Strategy and
Landfill Directive, there is likely to be a need to identify additional land for new facilities for waste
management higher up the waste hierarchy during the plan period. The extent and nature of such
facilities will be defined in Regional Waste Plan and Municipal Waste Management Strategy, which
are currently in preparation. Once the requirements of these documents are known, the waste policies in
the UDP will be reviewed.
Monmouthshire County Council

UDP - Approved 22nd June 2006
The overall planning context for future development within Monmouthshire is provided by the Unitary
Development Plan (UDP), Deposit Version, dated September 2001.
W3 – Subject to detailed planning considerations, household waste recycling centres and banks will be
permitted where this will help to achieve a network of sites accessible to local authorities.
W4 – Proposals for major residential and commercial development will only be permitted where
appropriate facilities for the recycling or composting of household waste are provided.
W5 – Subject to detailed planning considerations, integrated proposals for the recovery of energy from
waste will be allowed. Waste incineration without energy recovery will not be permitted.
W6 - Proposals for new landfill and land raising sites and extensions to existing sites will be permitted
where this would reduce the need to export wastes to sites outside the County without encouraging the
use of landfill/land raising for dealing with wastes for which more appropriate options exist.
W9 - Proposals for waste management facilities, except those involving the final deposit of waste on land
at the site or open windrow composting, will be permitted within industrial sites (Class B2 of the Town and
Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987).
Vale of Glamorgan Council

UDP - Adopted 2006
Policy 13: Waste Management Includes:
Provision of waste management facilities
Criteria for assessing waste management facilities
Developments sensitive to environmental effects of waste disposal
Waste disposal on agricultural land
Newport City Council

UDP - Adopted 16th May 2006
WD1 Landfill or landraising requirements for general household and commercial waste will continue to be
accommodated at the Docks Way waste disposal site
WD2 Land at Greenmoor is allocated for the tipping and storage of steelworks waste
WD3 Proposals for further landfill / landraise waste disposal sites will be considered favourably
WD4 An appropriate buffer zone will be required between any active waste disposal site and other
development, with the extent of the safeguarding area
132
Appendix 3b
WD6 Proposals for the development of in-building facilities which involve the recovery and re-use of
materials will be permitted on B2 employment sites
WD7 Proposals for the development of alternative methods of solid waste disposal will be permitted
SP22 – Waste disposal
A hierarchical approach to waste management is favoured as follows:
Waste reduction,
Re-use,
Recycling
Composting of organic waste,
Incineration with energy recovery,
Safe disposal.
The environmental impact of landfill, land-raising, incineration and other treatment should be minimised in
terms of the best practicable environmental option and the proximity principle.
133
Appendix 4a
Appendix 4a: Waste Management Options &

Criteria Development
Summary
Prosiect Gwyrdd will treat residual municipal waste from the five partner authorities, amounting to
some 30-40% of total MSW arisings. The precise scope of the project and the Outline Business Case
has yet to be confirmed by the Partnership; it is intended that this will be finally agreed during the
Steering Group meeting on 5th December 2007.
In 14th November 2007, officers were asked to contribute to the process by proposing potential
residual waste management options and criteria against which these options would be evaluated.
These criteria and their suggested relative weightings were subject to further discussion at an Officer
Steering Group meeting on 5th December 2007.
Furthermore, while it is intended to use these criteria as the basis for tender evaluation in addition to
the OBC options appraisal process, the measurement and application of the criteria will be adjusted
slightly during the procurement phase to incorporate certain pass / fail thresholds. Application of the
criteria does not remove the inclusion of a documented ‘reality check’ against reference options at any
stage of the process.
The evaluation criteria and their relative weightings are:
Criterion Measurement Weighting
Quantitative
Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions using
WRATE based on outputs from waste modelling
To include residual waste management only (no
collection), including:
Waste transfer & transportation
Technology
Outputs
Landfill
Quantitative – from cost modelling, presented as a

Net Present Value over the agreed contract period.
It is currently envisaged that during procurement
this criteria will have a pass / fail threshold after
which the weighting will apply.
Total capital cost, to include:
Transfer stations where applicable
Total cost Residual waste treatment facilities 40%
Land acquisition
Total operating cost and income over agreed

contract period, to include:
Waste transfer & transportation
Facility operating costs
134
Appendix 4a

Third party income
Revenue for outputs / products
Landfill
Additional revenue over agreed contract period,
including:
Funding income
LAS fines
Qualitative - relative score

Proven technology on MSW Assessment based on how proven the technology 10%
is for treatment of MSW or similar in the developed
world.
Qualitative – pass / fail

Bankability Assessment based on current bankability status of Pass / fail
the technology in the UK.

Flexibility / adaptability to
Assessment based on technology and 5%
changes in legislation
performance assessment

Flexibility / adaptability to
changes in waste Assessment based on technology and how 5%
composition performance or throughput may change if
composition changes

Adaptability to changes in Assessment based on technology and potential for 5%
waste quantity modular approach, consideration of operational
performance if not running at full capacity

It is currently envisaged that during procurement
this criteria will have a pass / fail threshold after
which the weighting will apply.
Availability of end markets Assessment based on consideration of availability 5%
of markets for process outputs from residual waste
treatment
Will not include cost or income as this will be
covered under cost criteria
Quantitative - from waste flow modelling

Residual waste management only – not including
BMW diversion
diversion from collection activities 5%
performance
Comparison of performance of tonnes BMW
diverted in relation to LAS targets
135
Appendix 4a
Quantitative - from waste flow modelling

Residual waste management only – not including
Contribution to recycling /
contribution from collection activities 5%
composting targets
Comparison of performance towards recycling /
composting rates

Likelihood of planning
Assessment based on consideration of a particular 10%
permission
technical option
A long list of 27 project options was put forward. This list has been moderated through a ‘reality check’
of what is reasonable to the Prosiect Gwyrdd authorities in consideration of the level of risk that is
acceptable to the partnership in terms of technology, management of process outputs and planning. A
short list of 4 options (including a number of sub-options) has been developed:
1 Landfill
2a One large energy from waste plant, with power and heat recovery, bottom ash recycling
2b One large energy from waste plant, with power and heat recovery, no bottom ash recycling
3a Two energy from waste plant (at different locations), with power and heat recovery, bottom
ash recycling
3b Two energy from waste plant (at different locations), with power and heat recovery, no bottom
ash recycling
4a MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect Gwyrdd
facilities on the same site
4b MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect Gwyrdd
facilities on another site
The short list of options will be modelled in detail and the performance of each evaluated against the
set of agreed criteria, to determine the reference project. The agreed shortlist will be modelled in
detail to allow evaluation against the agreed criteria.
136
Appendix 4a
Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria were suggested by the team (listed in the order that they were
suggested):
Reliability
Proven technology on MSW
Environmental impact
Capital cost
Operating cost
Transport impacts
BMW diversion performance
Flexibility / adaptability to future legislation
Flexibility / adaptability to changes in waste composition
Adaptability to changes in waste quantity
Public acceptability
Politics: local & national
Location: access implications
Proximity to waste source
Contribute to meeting recycling / composting targets
‘Carbon light’
Deliverability
Bankability
Resource recovery
Employment
Competition / market interest
Timescales
‘Saleability’ to the public
Waste acceptance criteria: future changes in waste management practices
Planning and site implications
Licensing and permitting
Takes into account existing infrastructure
Aesthetics
Location: for neighbours as potential heat sink
Health impacts
Reduces reliance on landfill
Opportunities for rail / water transport
These criteria were subsequently combined in to the following groupings in the

meeting:
Environmental impacts
Transport impacts
Proximity
Contribute to recycling / composting targets
‘Carbon light’
Resource recovery
Licensing and permitting
Aesthetics
Reduces reliance on landfill
Cost
Capital cost
Operating cost
137
Appendix 4a
Bankability
Timescales
Competition / market interest
Technology
Reliability
Proven on MSW
Flexibility / adaptability to future legislation
Deliverability
Waste acceptance criteria: future changes in waste management practices
Acceptability
Public acceptability
Politics: local & national
Employment
‘Saleability’ to the public
Planning & sites
Location: for neighbours as potential heat sink
Location
Opportunities for rail / water transport
Location: access implications
Takes into account existing infrastructure
Other
Health impacts
Following the meeting, the criteria were examined further, with suggestions for evaluation metrics.
(Those criteria ‘greyed out’ should be removed for the reasons stated.)
Criterion Measurement Comment
Environmental Impacts
Transport impacts & Potential for double-counting - will be

proximity taken into account via cost and
carbon footprint.
‘Carbon light’ / carbon Quantitative To include residual waste

footprint management only (no collection),
Evaluation of greenhouse
including:
gas emissions using
WRATE. Transfer
Technology
Outputs
Landfill
Opportunities for rail / water This is site specific and it is unlikely

transport that it will be possible to evaluate at
OBC stage
Health impacts This will be assessed at planning

application stage
138
Appendix 4a
Licensing and permitting This will be assessed by the regulator

and is not measurable at the OBC
stage
Aesthetics The OBC will not address the design

of the facilities, and this will be
covered during the procurement and
planning application stages
Resource recovery Potential for double-counting -

addressed under contribution to
targets and reducing reliance on
landfill
Cost
Capital cost Quantitative – from cost Total capital cost, to include:

modelling, presented as a
Net Present Value over Transfer stations where applicable
the agreed contract Residual waste treatment facilities
period.
Land acquisition
Total operating cost over agreed

contract period, to include:
Transfer
Facility operating costs
Funding income
Third party income
Revenue for outputs / products
Landfill
LAS fines
Technology
Reliability Potential for double-counting – to be

covered by how proven the
technology is and flexibility criteria
Proven on MSW Qualitative Assessment based on how proven the

technology is for treatment of MSW or
Relative score
similar in UK, Europe or rest of world
Flexibility / adaptability to Qualitative Assessment based on technology and

future legislation performance assessment
Relative score
Flexibility / adaptability to Qualitative Assessment based on technology and

changes in waste how performance or throughput may
Relative score
composition change if composition changes
139
Appendix 4a
Adaptability to changes in Qualitative Assessment based on technology and

waste quantity potential for modular approach,
Relative score
consideration of operational
performance if not running at full
capacity
Waste acceptance criteria: Potential for double-counting - should

future changes in waste be covered by flexibility to changes in
management practices legislation, as changes in waste
management practices are generally
led by legislation
Availability of end markets Qualitative [A new criterion added since the

workshop]
Relative score
Assessment based on consideration
of availability of markets for process
outputs from residual waste treatment
Will not include cost or income as this
will be covered under cost criteria
BMW diversion performance Quantitative Residual waste management only –

not including diversion from collection
From waste flow
activities
modelling
Comparison of performance of tonnes
BMW diverted in relation to LAS
targets
Contribute to recycling / Quantitative Residual waste management only –

composting targets not including contribution from
From waste flow
collection activities
modelling
Comparison of performance towards
recycling / composting rates
Reduces reliance on landfill Potential for double-counting – will be

covered by BMW diversion
performance and contribution to
recycling / composting targets
Bankability Qualitative Suggest pass / fail criteria, based on

consideration of whether the technical
Pass / fail
solution has been banked in the UK.
Acceptability
Public acceptability Potential for double-counting – will be

covered by planning likelihood
criterion
To be managed through public
engagement and communications
campaigns
140
Appendix 4a
Political acceptability: local & Potential for double-counting – will be

national covered by planning likelihood
criterion
Not able to measure local political
acceptability as this is subject to
change and can be managed through
stakeholder engagement
National acceptability will be managed
through basing OBC on current WAG
policy and proposed strategy
Employment May not be able to distinguish

between various options
Employment will be considered at
planning application stage
Location: for neighbours as This is site specific and depending on

potential heat sink the site availability it may not be
possible to evaluate at OBC stage
Potential for double-counting -
‘Saleability’ to the public This will be addressed by the

communications plan by explaining
the alternatives
Deliverability
Timescales for delivery Potential for double-counting – will be

taken into account in cost, BMW
diversion and planning likelihood
criteria
Planning & sites - likelihood Qualitative Assessment based on consideration

of getting planning of a particular technical option
Relative score
permission
Competition / market interest This will be covered through market

testing
Use as reality check on identified
reference project
Location: access implications Site specific and will be assessed at

planning application stage
Takes into account existing Use of existing supporting

infrastructure infrastructure will be a pre-requisite
for any solution; the Regional Waste
Plan and planning application will take
into account the ‘need’ for the facilities
based on other such infrastructure in
the area
141
Appendix 4a
The main criteria headings were subsequently removed for clarity.
The weightings for the criteria are:
Criterion Weighting
Total cost, expressed as NPV 40%
Proven on MSW 10%
Bankability Pass / fail
Contribution to recycling / composting targets 5%
142
Appendix 4a
The Long List of Options

The following options were suggested in the Officer Steering Group meeting on 14th November for the
future residual waste management solutions for the Prosiect Gwyrdd:
1 Landfill
No energy recovery
One large incinerator Power and heat recovery
Power recovery only
No energy recovery
10 Two incinerators (at different Bottom ash recycling
Power and heat recovery
11 locations) No bottom ash recycling
Power recovery only
14 Gasification
15 Pyrolysis
16 On-site combustion of RDF
Off-site combustion of RDF
17 Configured to produce RDF (through a Prosiect Gwyrdd
as primary output facility)
RDF managed by open
18
MBT / BMT market
19 Configured to produce CLO to landfill
‘compost-like output’ as
20 primary product CLO spread to land
21 Mixed waste anaerobic Digestate to landfill
22 digestion Digestate spread to land
23 On-site combustion of floc product
Mechanical heat treatment Off-site combustion of floc product (through a Prosiect
24
(autoclave) Gwyrdd facility)
25 Floc managed by open market
26 Overseas
Export residual waste
27 To UK merchant facility
143
Appendix 4a
The long list of options has been moderated using a ‘reality check’ on what is reasonable and
deliverable, and in consideration of the evaluation criteria, in particular the pass/ fail criterion of
‘bankability’. The moderation is based on the following, as discussed at the Officer Steering Group
meeting on 5th December:
Reason for discounting

1 Landfill
Incineration with no energy
2 Bottom ash recycling recovery is not politically
No energy recovery
acceptable for new
3 No bottom ash recycling facilities
4 Power and heat Bottom ash recycling
5 recovery No bottom ash recycling
It will be difficult to cost
One large CHP at OBC stage, but the
incinerator assessment will recognise
the advantages of CHP
over power recovery only -
Power recovery only
for the options appraisal
7 No bottom ash recycling we will be evaluating
options for power recovery
only, on the basis that CHP
would score higher
Incineration with no energy
8 Bottom ash recycling recovery is not politically
No energy recovery
acceptable for new
9 No bottom ash recycling facilities
10 Power and heat Bottom ash recycling
11 recovery No bottom ash recycling
Two It will be difficult to cost
incinerators CHP at OBC stage, but the
(at different assessment will recognise
locations) the advantages of CHP
over power recovery only -
Power recovery only
for the options appraisal
13 No bottom ash recycling we will be evaluating
options for power recovery
only, on the basis that CHP
would score higher
Not proven on mixed waste
14 Gasification
– not bankable
Not proven on mixed waste
15 Pyrolysis
– not bankable
On-site combustion of
16 MBT / BMT
RDF
Off-site combustion of
17 RDF (through a Prosiect
Gwyrdd facility)
Configured to
produce RDF as
primary output
18 RDF managed by open The partnership is not

market willing to take the risk of
RDF markets. During the
procurement stage, this
option may be re-
considered providing the
144 contractor is willing to take
the risk of finding RDF
Appendix 4a
Reason for discounting

markets, in which case it
could be closely linked with
options 16 & 17
Will exceed WAG
19 CLO to landfill
Configured to produce maximum to landfill limits
‘compost-like output’ as Unlikely to be acceptable
20 primary product CLO spread to land due to WAG policy on MBT
outputs
Will exceed WAG
21 Digestate to landfill
maximum to landfill limits
Mixed waste anaerobic
Unlikely to be acceptable
digestion
22 Digestate spread to land due to WAG policy on MBT
outputs
23 Mechanical On-site combustion of floc product MHT is currently not
heat Off-site combustion of floc product (through a bankable and is not proven
24
treatment Prosiect Gwyrdd facility) on MSW at the scale of
25 (autoclave) Floc managed by open market Prosiect Gwyrdd
26 Overseas Not politically acceptable
Export
residual This is a procurement
27 waste To UK merchant facility route issue rather than a
technical option
On this basis, the original long list of options is short-listed to the following:
1 Landfill – as a baseline for comparison
ash recycling
ash recycling
Short-listed options were modelled in detail to identify the reference project for the Outline Business
Case through evaluation against the criteria.
145
Appendix 4b
Appendix 4b: Technical Assumptions

This paper sets out the key assumptions used in the technical options appraisal process.
Baseline Waste Arisings

Current waste arisings and recycling / composting performance have been taken from data provided
by all five authorities. Data has been provided for the baseline year of 2006/07 with estimates for the
current year 2007/08 based on year to date figures provided by the authorities. Forecast figures for
2007/08 onwards have been based on planned service levels and planned scheme changes, where
budgets have already been secured.
Only municipal waste streams for reporting purposes have been included; those streams not
considered municipal have not been taken into account and will not form part of the waste arisings for
Prosiect Gwyrdd.
The 2006/07 waste arisings for each authority are presented below. These figures have been used as
the baseline for the waste modelling.
Caerphilly County Borough

Household Non-household
Council
Bring Other Other
Tonnes Kerbside CA Trade
banks hhld non-hhld
Recycling 957 6,358 782 16,478 1,080 1,814
Composting 3,427 0 2,574 1 492
Recycling & composting 957 9,785 782 19,052 1,082 2,306
Glass 289 1,768 456
Paper / Card for recycling 520 3,522 104 1,006 624 85
Paper / Card for composting
Cans / metals 430 35 1,522 79
Plastics 638 104 527 75
Textiles 148
Green waste 3,427 2,574 492
Other org (inc kitchen) 1
Timber/wood 313 6,467* 348
WEEE 8 745
Potentially haz 1 100
Misc comb 78
Misc non-comb 139 6,112 1,226
Residual 0 50,219 5,645 8,071 10,000 1,065
Haz waste (residual)
Residual waste 50,219 5,645 8,071 10,000 1,065
Total 957 60,004 6,427 27,123 11,082 3,371
108,963t including inerts
Total MSW
101,485t excluding inerts
* includes 2,922 tonnes wood for recovery
146
Appendix 4b
Cardiff County Council Household Non-household

Bring Other Other
banks hhld non-hhld
Recycling 1,312 13,915 115 4,673 430 0
Composting 8,925 0 2,150 0 3,543
Recycling & composting 1,312 22,840 115 6,823 430 3,543
Glass 432 3,975 420 80
Paper / Card for recycling 750 8,375 1,320 350
Cans / metals 15 700 690
Plastics 15 865 75
Textiles 100 70
Green waste 8,925 2,150 3,543
Other org (inc kitchen)
Timber/wood 115* 117
WEEE 1,855
Potentially haz 10
Misc comb
Misc non-comb 116
Residual 0 92,886 9,316 21,065 26,210 2,638
Haz waste (residual) 5 5 5
Residual waste 92,881 9,311 21,060 26,210 2,638
Total 1,312 115,726 9,431 27,888 26,640 6,181
Total MSW
* wood for recovery
147
Appendix 4b
Monmouthshire County
Council
Bring Other Other
banks hhld non-hhld
Recycling 1,066 4,046 30 2,416 0 0
Composting 6,905 0 1,713 0 356
Recycling & composting 1,066 10,951 30 4,129 0 356
Glass 547 1,476 283
Paper / Card for recycling 316 2,317 663
Plastics 82 61
Textiles 93 49 23
Green waste 6,405 1,713 356
Timber/wood
WEEE 371
Potentially haz 94
Misc comb 30 0.6
Misc non-comb
Residual 0 23,781 1,817 7,155 2,382 672
Haz waste (residual) 11 15 178
Residual waste 23,781 1,806 7,141 2,382 495
Total 1,066 34,732 1,846 11,284 2,382 1,028
Total MSW 52,338 t
148
Appendix 4b
Newport City Council Household Non-household

Bring Other Other
banks hhld non-hhld
Recycling 234 10,591 0 3,662 446 38
Composting 5,560 0 1,815 0 1,740
Recycling & composting 234 16,151 0 5,477 446 1,778
Glass 132 3,080 67 164
Paper / Card for recycling 102 5,257 335 282
Plastics 1,167 49
Textiles 360 98
Green waste 5,260 1,815 1,740
Timber/wood 327
WEEE 345
Potentially haz 44
Misc comb 145
Misc non-comb 1,310
Residual 0 34,920 1,245 5,631 3,719 4,469
Haz waste (residual)
Residual waste 34,920 1,245 5,631 3,719 4,469
Total 234 51,071 1,245 11,108 4,165 6,247
Total MSW
149
Appendix 4b
Vale of Glamorgan County

Borough Council
Bring Other Other
Tonnes Kerbside CA Trade*
banks hhld non-hhld
Recycling 2,245 7,650 68 8,038 0 0
Composting 530 1,130 2,858 0 0
Recycling & composting 2,245 8,180 1,198 10,896 0 0
Glass 734 1,854 74
Paper / Card for recycling 933 4,468 388
Cans / metals 81 333 1,125
Plastics 313 995 13
Textiles 184 26
Green waste 530 1,130 2,858
Other org (inc kitchen)
Timber/wood 2,406
WEEE 534
Potentially haz 103
Misc comb 68 117.53
Misc non-comb 3,251
Residual 0 34,962 3,003 6,785 0 0
Haz waste (residual) 35
Residual waste 34,962 3,003 6,750
Total 2,245 43,142 4,201 17,681 0 0
Total MSW
* trade waste included in household figures
150
Appendix 4b
Waste Growth
Waste growth assumptions have been made through consideration of historical waste arisings and
future household and population projections for each authority, as set out below.
Waste Growth Overview
The growth rates used in the forecasting are:
Caerphilly 0.5% MSW growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 0.25% per year up to
2020, 0% thereafter
Cardiff 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2015, reducing to 1% thereafter
Monmouthshire 1% MSW growth per year up to 2012, 0.5% to 2020, 0% thereafter
Newport 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2012, reducing to 1% to 2020 and 0.5%
thereafter
Vale of Glamorgan 3% MSW growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 1% up to 2015 and 0.5%
thereafter
Applying these MSW growth rates to each authority gives an overall partnership growth rate falling
from 1.45% per year to 0.54% per year.
The total MSW arisings will increase from around 490,000 tpa to around 575,000 tpa by 2024. There
will be some further waste growth beyond 2024 for the duration of the contract period, which will be
taken into account in the detailed waste modelling.
From the information available and from reasonable assumptions, by 2024 it is estimated that the
residual household waste per person will be around 190kg if the partnership authorities achieve 70%
MSW recycling and composting (excluding inerts). It is recognised that this exceeds the proposed
maximum residual household waste figure of 150kg/person put forward by WAG in the recent
consultation paper.
Waste Growth - Caerphilly

Over the last few years, Caerphilly has seen large changes in MSW arisings and growth rate, again,
partially due to changes in the definition of MSW for reporting purposes. This is summarised below:
Year
Growth in MSW Growth in MSW
(commencing MSW Households
MSW arisings t/hhd per household
April)
2002 93,568 73,670 1.27
2003 105,851 13.13% 73,697 1.44 13.09%
2004 117,686 11.18% 73,890 1.59 10.89%
2005 115,507 -1.85% 74,160 1.56 -2.21%
2006 108,963 -5.67% 75,000 1.45 -6.72%
The average growth rate for MSW per year between 2003 and 2006 was 0.98%, and -3.71% per year
between 2004 and 2006.
It is projected1 that 208 new households will be constructed each year between 2006 and 2011.
Assuming this pattern of build continues beyond 2011, the estimated MSW growth rate is around
0.28% per year, based on current MSW arisings per household being maintained at 1.45 tonnes:
1
Joint Housing Land Availability Study, April 2006
151
Appendix 4b
Year Based on static 1.45 t/hhld

(commencing Households Growth per
MSW tonnes
April) year
2006 75,000 108,072
2007 75,208 109,265 0.28%
2008 75,416 109,567 0.28%
2009 75,624 109,870 0.28%
2010 75,832 110,172 0.28%
2011 76,040 110,474 0.27%
2012 76,248 110,776 0.27%
2013 76,456 111,078 0.27%
2014 76,664 111,381 0.27%
2015 76,872 111,683 0.27%
2016 77,080 111,985 0.27%
2017 77,288 112,287 0.27%
2018 77,496 112,589 0.27%
2019 77,704 112,891 0.27%
2020 77,912 113,194 0.27%
2021 78,120 113,496 0.27%
For capacity forecasting purposes, there is concern with basing projections on the high negative
growth seen over the last few years, as it is not completely understood how this reduction has come
about. It would be more prudent to base projections on a higher growth rate in early years, which
reduces as national and local waste minimisation campaigns take hold. Working on 0.5% waste
growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 0.25% per year up to 2020, 0% thereafter has been assumed.
152
Appendix 4b
Waste Growth - Cardiff

Cardiff has seen large swings in its MSW arisings over the last few years. Other than changes in MSW
definitions for reporting purposes, it is not clear why this is the case.
Year MSW MSW

MSW
(commencing Growth Households Population
arisings t/hhld t/person
April)
2004 187,596 129,508 1.45 311,966 0.60
2005 181,207 -3.41% 130,185 1.39 314,145 0.58
2006 187,178 3.30% 130,862 1.43 317,523 0.59
Cardiff’s future development plans are based on around 1,500 new households per year and a
population growth of around 2,200 per year up to 20212. This demonstrates a reduction in the number
of people per household from 2.43 to 2.27 over this period.
Projections have been made on the basis of maintaining the current (2006) MSW arisings per
household, and on maintaining the current arisings per person, as presented in the table below.
Based on static 1.43 Based on static 0.59

Year t/hhld t/person
(commencing Households Population
April) MSW Growth MSW Growth
tonnes per year tonnes per year
2006 130,862 317,523 187,178 187,178
2007 132,435 319,689 189,427 1.20% 188,455 0.68%
2008 134,007 321,855 191,677 1.19% 189,731 0.68%
2009 135,580 324,020 193,926 1.17% 191,008 0.67%
2010 137,152 326,186 196,175 1.16% 192,285 0.67%
2011 138,725 328,352 198,424 1.15% 193,562 0.66%
2012 140,297 330,518 200,674 1.13% 194,838 0.66%
2013 141,870 332,684 202,923 1.12% 196,115 0.66%
2014 143,442 334,849 205,172 1.11% 197,392 0.65%
2015 145,015 337,015 207,421 1.10% 198,669 0.65%
2016 146,587 339,181 209,671 1.08% 199,945 0.64%
2017 148,160 341,347 211,920 1.07% 201,222 0.64%
2018 149,732 343,513 214,169 1.06% 202,499 0.63%
2019 151,305 345,678 216,418 1.05% 203,775 0.63%
2020 152,877 347,844 218,668 1.04% 205,052 0.63%
2021 154,450 350,010 220,917 1.03% 206,329 0.62%
Since the average waste per person and per household has remained relatively static over the last few
years, it is likely that total MSW arisings will grow between 0.6% and 1.2% per year. Indeed, the
2
This is currently being consulted on. Figures presented here are averages based on LDP for the
preferred options, adjusted for revised mid year estimates for 2006.
153
Appendix 4b
average waste growth per year between 2004 and 2006 is -0.06%, which smoothes out the potential
anomaly of arisings in 2005.
For Cardiff, the project is based on MSW growing at 1.5% per year to 2015, reducing to 1% thereafter.
Cardiff produces the greatest tonnage of waste of all five Prosiect Gwyrdd partners, and it is
considered that using a lower growth rate for projection purposes could put the project at risk.
154
Appendix 4b
Waste Growth - Monmouthshire

Historical waste arisings of MSW have shown wide ranges in waste growth, some of which can be
attributed to changes in the definition of MSW by WAG. Historical waste arisings are summarised
below:
Year
Waste growth per
(commencing MSW
year
April)
1993 35,030
1994 37,535 7.15%
1995 39,999 6.56%
1996 41,223 3.06%
1997 42,821 3.88%
1998 43,314 1.15%
1999 46,520 7.40%
2000 47,484 2.07%
2001 51,141 7.70%
2002 51,976 1.63%
2003 50,919 -2.03%
2004 52,147 2.41%
2005 50,489 -3.18%
2006 52,338 3.66%
Taking these figures:
the average MSW growth per year between 2002 and 2006 was 0.2%
Household and population figures are available for 2003 and 2006:
Tonnes
Tonnes
Year Households Population people/hhld MSW
MSW/person
/hhld
2003 36,000 86,600 2.41 1.41 0.59
2006 38,600 87,000 2.25 1.36 0.60
Between 2003 and 2006:
the average MSW growth per household per year was -1.38%
the average MSW growth per person per year was 0.77%
Monmouthshire is projecting that household numbers will increase by around 400 per year up to 2021;
there are no projections for population figures. Based on this information, the following projections on
MSW arisings and growth rate can be made:
155
Appendix 4b
Based on 1.38% reduction in

Year Based on static 1.36t/hhld
MSW per hhld per year
(commencing
MSW Growth per Growth per
April) MSW tonnes
tonnes year year
2006 52,338 52,338
2007 52,880 1.04% 52,151 -0.36%
2008 53,423 1.03% 51,960 -0.37%
2009 53,965 1.02% 51,763 -0.38%
2010 54,507 1.01% 51,563 -0.39%
2011 55,050 1.00% 51,358 -0.40%
2012 55,592 0.99% 51,148 -0.41%
2013 56,135 0.98% 50,935 -0.42%
2014 56,677 0.97% 50,718 -0.43%
2015 57,219 0.96% 50,498 -0.44%
2016 57,762 0.95% 50,273 -0.44%
2017 58,304 0.94% 50,046 -0.45%
2018 58,846 0.93% 49,815 -0.46%
2019 59,389 0.92% 49,581 -0.47%
2020 59,931 0.91% 49,344 -0.48%
2021 60,473 0.90% 49,104 -0.49%
It can be seen that the projected growth rate is likely to lie between around -0.5% and 1% per year.
Monmouthshire’s MSW arisings has seen a reasonable variation in recent years, with no real trend.
Consideration of the arisings per household suggest that for capacity forecasting, working on 1% per
annum growth in MSW up to 2012, 0.5% to 2020, 0% thereafter would not be unreasonable.
156
Appendix 4b
Waste Growth - Newport

Newport has seen a reduction in MSW arisings over the last couple of years, mainly due to the
introduction of fortnightly refuse collections and changes in MSW definitions for reporting purposes:
Year Growth in
Growth MSW
(commencing MSW Households MSW per
in MSW t/hhld
April) household
2003 74,539 56,950 1.31
2004 75,498 1.29% 57,750 1.31 -0.12%
2005 74,179 -1.75% 58,550 1.27 -3.09%
2006 74,070 -0.15% 59,350 1.25 -1.49%
Newport’s development plans are based on a net addition of 800 properties per year up to 2020;
future population figures are not available. Projections on MSW arisings have been made based on
maintaining the current MSW arisings per household (1.25 tonnes), as well as on a reduction in MSW
arisings per household of 1.49% per year, as seen between 2005 and 2006:
Based on 1.49% reduction in

Year Based on static 1.25 t/hhld
MSW per hhld per year
(commencing Households
April) Growth Growth per
MSW tonnes MSW tonnes
per year year
2006 59,350 74,070 74,070
2007 60,150 75,068 1.35% 73,948 -0.17%
2008 60,950 76,067 1.33% 73,813 -0.18%
2009 61,750 77,065 1.31% 73,665 -0.20%
2010 62,550 78,064 1.30% 73,505 -0.22%
2011 63,350 79,062 1.28% 73,334 -0.23%
2012 64,150 80,060 1.26% 73,152 -0.25%
2013 64,950 81,059 1.25% 72,958 -0.26%
2014 65,750 82,057 1.23% 72,754 -0.28%
2015 66,550 83,056 1.22% 72,540 -0.29%
2016 67,350 84,054 1.20% 72,316 -0.31%
2017 68,150 85,053 1.19% 72,083 -0.32%
2018 68,950 86,051 1.17% 71,840 -0.34%
2019 69,750 87,049 1.16% 71,589 -0.35%
2020 70,550 88,048 1.15% 71,329 -0.36%
2021 71,350 89,046 1.13% 71,061 -0.38%
It can be seen from these figures that the growth rate is likely to be somewhere between 1.4% and -
0.4% per year. There is concern that the reduction in waste arisings will not be continued into the
future, as this is considered to be mainly due to the impact of introducing fortnightly refuse collections.
For this reason a static waste growth profile per household may be more appropriate, and taking into
account future housing plans.
157
Appendix 4b
Forecasting capacity based on 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2012, reducing to 1% to 2020 and 0.5%
thereafter has been assumed for Newport.
158
Appendix 4b
Waste Growth - Vale of Glamorgan

Vale of Glamorgan has seen a variation in MSW arisings over the last few years, predominantly due to
changes in MSW reporting:
Year
Growth MSW MSW
(commencing MSW Households Population
in MSW t/hhld t/person
April)
2003 66,299 52,184 1.27 120,876 0.55

2004 68,848 3.84% 52,807 1.30 121,676 0.57
2005 70,208 1.98% 53,431 1.31 122,475 0.57
2006 67,269 -4.19% 54,055 1.24 123,275 0.55
Taking these figures:
Between 2003 and 2006:
the average MSW growth per household per year was -0.68%
the average MSW growth per person per year was -0.17%
Information has been provided from the Council’s planners on the future projections of household and
population. It is anticipated that there will be an additional 500 households per year up to 2016 and
population increases of around 400 per year. For the purposes of waste capacity forecasting we have
assumed this trend will continue. In addition, it is understood that there are plans for between 5,000
and 10,000 new households through new housing developments, and that these will be in addition to
the planner’s projections3.
This suggests an average of 2.28 people per household at the current levels, falling to 1.81 by 2021.
In the absence of historical waste arisings, we have projected future waste arisings based on the
current (2006) MSW arisings per household and per person remaining static, as well as on the basis
of a 0.68% reduction in MSW per household per year, as seen between 2003 and 2006.
3
Personal communication with Clifford Parish
159
Appendix 4b
Based on 0.68%
Based on static Based on static
Year reduction in MSW
1.24 t/hhld 0.55 t/person
(commencing Households Population per household year
April)
MSW Growth MSW Growth MSW Growth
tonnes per year tonnes per year tonnes per year
2006 54,055 123,275 67,269 67,269 67,269
2007 54,555 123,654 67,891 0.92% 67,476 0.31% 67,427 0.24%
2008 55,055 124,032 68,513 0.92% 67,682 0.31% 67,580 0.23%
2009 58,855 124,411 73,242 6.90% 67,889 0.31% 71,751 6.17%
2010 62,655 124,789 77,971 6.46% 68,095 0.30% 75,862 5.73%
2011 66,455 125,168 82,700 6.06% 68,302 0.30% 79,914 5.34%
2012 66,955 125,569 83,322 0.75% 68,521 0.32% 79,965 0.06%
2013 67,455 125,970 83,945 0.75% 68,739 0.32% 80,011 0.06%
2014 67,955 126,370 84,567 0.74% 68,958 0.32% 80,054 0.05%
2015 68,455 126,771 85,189 0.74% 69,177 0.32% 80,092 0.05%
2016 68,955 127,172 85,811 0.73% 69,396 0.32% 80,126 0.04%
2017 69,455 127,572 86,434 0.73% 69,614 0.31% 80,155 0.04%
2018 69,955 127,972 87,056 0.72% 69,832 0.31% 80,181 0.03%
2019 70,455 128,372 87,678 0.71% 70,050 0.31% 80,202 0.03%
2020 70,955 128,772 88,300 0.71% 70,269 0.31% 80,219 0.02%
2021 71,455 129,172 88,923 0.70% 70,487 0.31% 80,233 0.02%
It can be seen that on this basis the future MSW growth rate may lie anywhere between 7% and
0.02% per year. The average growth rate per year between 2006 and 2021 is 2.1% based on static
MSW arisings per household.
It is considered that a conservative view of waste growth should be applied to this project for the Vale
of Glamorgan due to the potential for large population and household expansion over the coming
years. Therefore, a growth rate of 3% per year up to 2012, reducing to 1% up to 2015 and 0.5%
thereafter, has been used for capacity forecasting purposes. This gives a good compromise between
planning for additional households and taking into account waste minimisation activities.
160
Appendix 4b
Waste Composition
The waste arisings have been split into the following streams:
Household Waste
Bring bank recyclates
Kerbside recyclates, organics and residual waste
HWRC recyclates, organics and residual waste
Other household waste, including bulky waste, street cleansing & gully waste
Non-Household Waste
Trade recyclates and residual waste
Other non-household waste, including fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, asbestos and grounds
waste
The composition of each waste stream has been based on existing compositional analyses studies,
with appropriate adjustment for the nature of segregated materials:
Collected Household Waste Composition
The total composition of collected household waste (kerbside collections and bring bank recyclates)
has been based on analysis in the 2003 study carried out by AEA Technology, ‘The composition of
municipal solid waste in Wales’. The average composition for Wales was used for Cardiff,
Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan, while a specific composition was available for Caerphilly.
Newport carried out an analysis of its residual collected household waste in 2006. This data has been
used for Newport, taking into account the quantity source separated recyclates in 2006/07 to provide
an overall composition of collected household waste.
HWRC Waste Composition
The total composition of household waste collected at HWRCs has been based on the composition of
CA site waste in the 2003 study carried out by AEA Technology, ‘The composition of municipal solid
waste in Wales’. The average composition for Wales was used for Cardiff, Monmouthshire and Vale of
Glamorgan, while a specific composition was available for Caerphilly.
Newport carried out an analysis of its residual HWRC waste in 2006. This data has been used for
Newport, taking into account the quantity source separated recyclates to provide an overall
composition of HWRC waste.
Trade Waste Composition
The composition of trade residual waste has been based on the composition of trade waste from the
2003 study by AEA Technology, ‘The composition of municipal solid waste in Wales’. This residual
composition has been amended as appropriate to incorporate the nature and quantity of actual
segregated material collected in the baseline year to estimate the total composition of all trade waste
collected.
Other Household Waste Composition
The composition of other household residual waste has been based on the composition of litter or
bulky waste (depending on the source of the waste for each authority) taken from the 2003 study by
AEA Technology as an average for the whole of Wales. This residual composition has been amended
as appropriate to incorporate the nature of actual segregated material collected in the baseline year to
estimate the total composition of this waste stream.
The residual waste composition for litter have been used for other household waste from Cardiff, Vale
of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, while the residual composition for bulky waste has been used for
Caerphilly and Newport.
161
Appendix 4b
Other Non-Household Waste Composition

The composition of other non-household residual waste has been based on the composition for litter
taken from the 2003 study by AEA Technology as an average for the whole of Wales. This residual
composition has been amended as appropriate to incorporate the nature of actual segregated material
collected in the baseline year to estimate the total composition of these waste streams to estimate the
total composition of this waste stream.
The compositions used are as presented in the tables below. In many cases, the compositions used
have been further adjusted to reflect actual or anticipated materials capture rates. Where this
adjustment has been necessary, it is indicated with an asterisk.
The compositions in the tables below represent the overall municipal waste stream, including material
segregated for recycling and composting, as well as residual waste. The composition of the residual
waste is dependent on the type and quantity of materials separated at source, as well as the overall
waste composition. The composition of the residual waste will change over time, particularly since
more intensive recycling and composting rates have been assumed in the waste flow modelling.
162
Appendix 4b
Waste Compositions used in Modelling

Household Other CA waste Other non-
Trade
collected household (household) household
From From
% bio- From actual
Caerphilly actual AEAT Study actual
AEAT composition
degradable collections 2003 - recyclates
Study 2003 and AEAT
& AEAT Caerphilly – and AEAT
- Caerphilly Study 2003
Study 2003 adjusted* Study
for litter
for bulkies 2003
Glass 0% 7.60% 0.6% 1.77% 7.8% 2.7%
Paper / Card 100% 20.60% 2.3% 6.03% 42.8% 12.3%
Cans / metal 0% 5.50% 4.6% 6.00% 4.6% 4.9%
Plastics 0% 12.60% 2.8% 2.63% 8.9% 8.6%
Textiles 50% 4% 0.3% 2.71% 1.5% 0.7%
Green Waste 100% 6.00% 0.5% 12.00% 2.7% 15.3%
Kitchen waste 100% 28.80% 0.3% 1.10% 22.1% 6.7%
Timber 100% 1.60% 9.6% 30.00% 0.6% 10.7%
WEEE 0% 0.80% 27.1% 4.00% 0.8% 0.1%
Potentially haz 0% 0.50% 0.2% 1.56% 0.8% 0.1%
Misc comb 50% 6.30% 47.6% 6.19% 5.1% 0.8%
Misc non-comb 0% 2.50% 4.0% 26.00% 1.0% 36.6%
Haz waste 0% 0.0% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines 50% 2.80% 0.1% 0.02% 1.3% 0.5%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
* Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) or anticipated (2007/08) materials capture of metals, timber, WEEE, and
misc non-combustibles

Trade
From From
% bio- From actual
Cardiff actual actual
AEAT Study composition
degradable collections AEAT Study recyclates
2003 – and AEAT
& AEAT 2003 and AEAT
adjusted* Study 2003
Study 2003 Study
for litter
for litter 2003
Glass 0% 6.40% 8.3% 2.77% 4.3% 3.6%
Paper / Card 100% 21.13% 30.6% 9.29% 41.8% 13.2%
Cans / metal 0% 4.15% 7.8% 6.99% 5.0% 3.4%
Plastics 0% 9.08% 20.0% 3.54% 9.7% 8.7%
Textiles 50% 2.68% 2.2% 2.47% 1.6% 0.9%
Green Waste 100% 18.00% 2.2% 17.95% 3.0% 58.3%
Kitchen waste 100% 23.96% 21.0% 3.15% 24.1% 9.1%
Timber 100% 0.99% 2.4% 12.63% 0.6% 0.5%
WEEE 0% 0.65% 0.2% 6.69% 0.8% 0.1%
Potentially haz 0% 0.55% 0.3% 1.46% 0.8% 0.1%
Misc comb 50% 5.82% 2.6% 13.78% 5.6% 1.1%
Misc non-comb 0% 2.48% 0.8% 18.49% 1.0% 0.3%
Haz waste 0% 0.00% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines 50% 4.11% 1.6% 0.78% 1.4% 0.7%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
* Composition adjusted to reflect anticipated (2007/08) materials capture of green waste
163
Appendix 4b

Trade
From From
% bio- From actual
Monmouthshire actual actual
degradable AEAT AEAT Study composition
collections recyclates
Study 2003 2003 – and AEAT
& AEAT and AEAT
– adjusted* adjusted# study 2003
Study 2003 Study
for litter
for litter 2003
Glass 0% 5.85% 8.2% 2.71% 4.1% 4.0%
Paper / Card 100% 19.32% 30.3% 9.09% 41.2% 14.9%
Cans / metal 0% 3.80% 7.7% 9.00% 5.1% 3.8%
Plastics 0% 8.30% 19.9% 3.47% 9.9% 9.8%
Textiles 50% 2.45% 2.2% 2.42% 1.7% 1.1%
Green Waste 100% 25.00% 2.2% 17.56% 3.0% 35.7%
Kitchen waste 100% 21.92% 20.8% 3.08% 24.5% 10.2%
Timber 100% 0.91% 1.2% 12.36% 0.6% 0.6%
WEEE 0% 0.60% 0.2% 6.54% 0.8% 0.1%
Potentially haz 0% 0.51% 0.3% 1.43% 0.8% 0.1%
Misc comb 50% 5.33% 4.1% 13.49% 5.7% 1.3%
Misc non-comb 0% 2.27% 0.8% 18.09% 1.1% 0.4%
Haz waste 0% 0.00% 0.6% 0.00% 0.0% 17.3%
Fines 50% 3.75% 1.6% 0.77% 1.4% 0.8%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
* Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of green waste
# Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of metals

Trade
From From
% bio- From MEL From MEL From actual
Newport actual actual
degradable residual residual composition
collections recyclates
study plus study plus and AEAT
& AEAT and AEAT
actual actual Study 2003
Study 2003 Study
recycling* recycling for litter*
for bulkies 2003
Glass 0% 8.5% 0.7% 1.6% 7.6% 6.0%
Paper / Card 100% 21.9% 0.8% 6.0% 43.5% 22.0%
Cans / metal 0% 3.2% 4.7% 10.0% 4.6% 6.2%
Plastics 0% 8.2% 1.4% 3.1% 8.8% 14.4%
Textiles 50% 2.2% 0.3% 3.3% 1.5% 1.6%
Green Waste 100% 20.5% 0.6% 18.0% 2.7% 30.0%
Kitchen waste 100% 22.1% 0.4% 1.9% 21.9% 15.1%
Timber 100% 0.4% 5.4% 5.5% 0.6% 0.9%
WEEE 0% 0.5% 30.7% 6.1% 0.8% 0.1%
Potentially haz 0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2%
Misc comb 50% 6.8% 52.8% 21.6% 5.1% 1.8%
Misc non-comb 0% 2.7% 2.1% 20.9% 0.9% 0.6%
Haz waste 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fines 50% 1.4% 0.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.1%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
# Composition adjusted to reflect anticipated (2007/08) materials capture of glass, metals, timber, WEEE, misc non-
combustibles
164
Appendix 4b

Trade
From
Vale of From actual From actual
% bio- actual
Glamorgan AEAT collections AEAT Study composition
degradable recyclates
Study 2003 & AEAT 2003 – and AEAT
and AEAT
– adjusted* Study 2003 adjusted# Study 2003
Study
for litter for litter
2003
Glass 0% 6.86% 6.0% 2.62%
Paper / Card 100% 22.67% 22.2% 8.77%
Cans / metal 0% 4.45% 5.6% 6.60%
Plastics 0% 9.74% 14.5% 3.34%
Textiles 50% 2.88% 1.6% 2.33%
Green Waste 100% 12.00% 28.5% 16.94%
Kitchen waste 100% 25.71% 15.2% 2.97%
Included in other waste
Timber 100% 1.07% 0.9% 15.02%
streams
WEEE 0% 0.70% 0.1% 6.31%
Potentially haz 0% 0.60% 0.2% 1.38%
Misc comb 50% 6.25% 3.5% 13.01%
Misc non-comb 0% 2.66% 0.6% 20.00%
Haz waste 0% 0.00% 0.0% 0.00%
Fines 50% 4.41% 1.1% 0.74%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
# Composition adjusted to reflect current (2006/07) materials capture of timber and misc non-combustibles
165
Appendix 4b
Forecasting Future Recycling & Composting Performance

Future recycling and composting performance has been based on meeting the targets proposed in the
paper released by WAG in October 2007 entitled ‘Future Directions for Municipal Waste Management
in Wales – a Paper for Discussion’. These targets are:
2009/10 2012/13 2015/16 2019/20 2024/25
Minimum levels of
40% 52% 58% 64% 70%
recycling/composting (or AD)
Minimum levels of composting (or AD)
of source separated food waste from
- 15% 15% 15% 15%
kitchens as part of the combined
recycling/composting target above
For the business case, it was felt prudent to base the assumptions for residual waste composition on
achievement of a long term recycling and composting target of 65% rather than 70% from 2024/45.
Consideration of the initial waste composition and the targeted recycling and composting performance
enables the residual waste composition to be determined and the implications for Landfill Allowances.
To determine the performance against LAS, the waste flow modelling assumes the total BMW content
of all municipal waste is 61%, in line with WAG guidance. The BMW landfill diversion performance of
each growth and recycling scenario has been determined through a mass-balance approach using the
BMW content of each material diverted through recycling or composting, from the total base
composition of 61% BMW.
Projections prior to 2009/10 have been made on the basis of planned scheme changes for each
authority; projections post-2009/10 have been based on meeting the above targets. A summary of the
projections for each authority are provided; these projections also show the anticipated material
capture rates required in order to achieve the desired recycling and composting levels, on the
assumption that the overall waste composition does not change over the time period being
considered.
It is recognised by the Partnership that there are risks associated with the achievement of these high
recycling rates. Furthermore, if the authorities do not meet the targets they may be subject to potential
fines imposed by WAG, in addition to those from any shortfall in BMW diversion against each
authority’s LAS targets.
166
Appendix 4b
Landfill Allowances
Landfill allowances for each of the Welsh local authorities have only been set up to 2009/10; WAG has
yet to confirm the allocation of BMW allowed to be landfilled by each authority each year after this
date, but has provided indicative figures to each local authority. These allowances are due to be
reviewed by WAG during 2008/09 depending on the waste arisings recorded from WasteDataFlow,
and this review may lead to amended landfill allowances for each local authority.
The landfill allowances as sent to local authorities in July 2006 are:
Year
Vale of
commencing Caerphilly Cardiff Monmouthshire Newport
Glamorgan
April
2006 61,829 97,985 27,012 40,503 33,418
2007 56,295 89,204 24,821 37,238 30,675
2008 50,760 80,424 22,631 33,972 27,931
2009 45,213 71,575 20,434 30,693 25,063
2010 40,118 63,510 18,131 27,235 22,239
2011 35,024 55,456 15,829 23,777 19,415
2012 29,930 47,381 13,527 20,318 16,591
2013 28,656 45,365 12,951 19,454 15,885
2014 27,382 43,348 12,375 18,589 15,179
2015 26,109 41,332 11,800 17,724 14,473
2016 24,835 39,316 11,224 16,860 13,767
2017 23,562 37,300 10,649 15,955 13,061
2018 22,288 35,284 10,073 15,131 12,355
2019 21,014 33,267 9,497 14,266 11,649
After 2019/20, it has been assumed that the annual landfill allowance will remain static. This may not
be the case in reality, depending on future UK and European waste policy.
It is important to recognise that the landfill allowances for both Councils cannot be ‘pooled’; each
Council must meet its own allowances in each year.
167
Appendix 4b
Residual Waste Treatment
Options
Residual MSW after source segregated recycling and composting will either be disposed to landfill or
treated to reduce its BMW content. Residual waste amounting to up to 35% of total MSW arisings will
be treated, surplus residual waste will be disposed to landfill.
The shortlisted residual waste treatment options evaluated are:
1 Landfill
ash recycling
ash recycling
It has been assumed that all treatment facilities will become operational by 1st April 2014 for all
options, in accordance with the proposed procurement timetable.
The facility capacity used in the modelling is based on the tonnage of waste to be treated, including
front-end rejects. Facility ‘unavailability’ for plant downtime and maintenance will be factored in by the
construction and operation contractors; therefore the facility capacity assumed in the modelling
reflects the total waste that would be managed by the facility, irrespective of any downtime.
Energy from Waste Treatment

The EfW plant modelled has upfront mechanical treatment to shred and sort the mixed waste. Rejects
not suitable for thermal treatment are removed at this stage – these will typically include large
contraries and bulky wastes. The shredded mixed waste is thermally treated by mass burn
incineration with power and heat recovery. The outputs of the process from the back end are bottom
ash and residues from the air pollution control treatment. The bottom ash can either be recycled as an
aggregate if markets exist, or landfilled as inert waste. The air pollution control residues are
hazardous and must be disposed or treated as hazardous waste. Treatment of residual waste by EfW
removes all the BMW content of the waste, with the exception of any pre-treatment rejects.
The following assumptions have been used in the waste flow modelling:
The following percentages of materials in front-
Pre-treatment rejects
end waste input (rejects totalling approx 15%w/w
of front-end input waste):
25%w/w of wood / timber;
90%w/w WEEE;
90%w/w hazardous and potentially hazardous
waste;
25%w/w miscellaneous combustibles; and
90% miscellaneous non-combustibles.
The reject rate will change depending on the
composition of the residual waste.
Moisture loss in pre-treatment 2% w/w of front-end input waste.
168
Appendix 4b
Bottom ash (to inert landfill or recycled) 23% w/w of EfW throughput.
Metals recovered for recycling from bottom 90% w/w of metals in front-end waste input.
ash
Hazardous residues 3.5% w/w of EfW throughput.
Power generation 0.5M Wh/t of thermal stage throughput
Mechanical Biological Treatment

A generic MBT plant has been modelled. The MBT plant is a ‘bio drier’ type facility, aerobically
treating and drying mixed residual waste, prior to mechanical processing. The mechanical processing
involves shredding and extraction of recyclables, which will count towards the authorities’ recycling
rates. The process produces a partially stabilised residue (reduced biodegradability), which is
assumed to be disposed to landfill. A refuse derived fuel material is also produced which has been
assumed to be combusted to produce energy through a Prosiect Gwyrdd facility.
The following assumptions have been used in the waste flow modelling:
Mass loss (evaporation & leachate) 25% w/w of front-end input waste.
90%w/w of metals in front-end waste input
Recyclates (metals) (approx 5% w/w of front-end input waste).
Approx 20% w/w of front-end input waste The
Process rejects & residues (landfill) reject rate will change depending on the
composition of the residual waste.
Refuse derived fuel 50% w/w of front-end input waste.
BMW reduction factor for process residues 25% of front-end input BMW content.
BMW reduction factor for RDF 25% of front-end input BMW content.
RDF combustion
The RDF combustion facility modelled is based on fluidised bed EfW with power recovery only (no
heat recovery). The following assumptions have been used in the waste flow modelling:
Bottom ash (to inert landfill or recycled) 26% w/w of EfW throughput.
Hazardous residues 4% w/w of EfW throughput
Power generation 0.5 MWh/t of thermal stage throughput
169
Appendix 4b
Cost Assumptions
Facility Costs
Revenue
Landfill
Landfill gate fee base case assumptions
Active (non-inert) waste

Landfill gate fee
Hazardous (active, non-inert) waste gate fee
Landfill Tax
Inert waste
Transportation costs
Inflation
Procurement Timetable
170
Appendix 4b
Model Outputs
171
Appendix 4c
Appendix 4c: Options Evaluation

Introduction
The Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership has developed criteria for the evaluation of residual waste management
options. The criteria and options have been agreed by the project Steering Group; the development and
agreement process is documented in Appendix 4a.
The criteria and options are as follows:
Criterion Weighting
Total cost 40%
Proven technology on MSW 10%
Contribution to recycling & composting targets 5%
Bankability1 Pass / fail
The Partnership has agreed to work towards meeting the higher recycling and composting targets
proposed by the Welsh Assembly Government in its discussion paper released in October 2007: ‘Future
Directions for Municipal Waste Management in Wales. Residual waste remaining after high source
segregated recycling and composting will be managed through one of the following options considered in
this Outline Business Case:
1 Landfill
3a Two energy from waste plant (at different locations), with power and heat recovery, bottom ash
recycling
ash recycling
4a MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect Gwyrdd facilities
on the same site
1
Bankability has been used as a screening criterion for development of the long list to the short list of options. It has not been
further applied in the options appraisal process.
172
Appendix 4c
4b MBT configured to produce RDF as primary output, RDF combusted by Prosiect Gwyrdd facilities
on another site
It is recognised that landfill is not considered to be a viable option for the partnership over the medium to
long term due to scarcity of landfill void space and the emerging policy from the Welsh Assembly
government proposing limits on the amount of MSW that can be disposed to landfill. The landfill option
has been retained for the options appraisal as a baseline for comparing the other technological options.
Evaluation Methodology
Each criterion has been evaluated according to the following discussion. Some criteria have been
evaluated qualitatively, for example, flexibility and likelihood to gain planning permission, while others
have been evaluated quantitatively based on the outputs of the waste and cost modelling exercise for
each option. Appendix 4b summarises the various assumptions made in the modelling for the purposes
of this options appraisal.
Quantitative Evaluation
The following criteria have been evaluated quantitatively:
Total cost (see Appendix 8)
Carbon footprint
Contribution to recycling and composting targets
The majority of the quantitative evaluation criteria are based on the performance of each option during the
year 2019/20. This is a target year under the Landfill Allowance Scheme, and the last year for which
targets have been set. It is also the latest year2 available for standard input assumptions within the
WRATE tool. The exception is the evaluation of the total cost, expressed as Net Present Value over the
complete contract period anticipated. It is not possible to compare the cashflow in any given year as this
will depend on when facilities are constructed.
For the quantitative evaluation, the actual value for each criterion has been normalised against all other
options, to give relative scores from 0 to 1, where 1 is the ‘best’ performing option against that criterion,
and 0 is the ‘worst’ performing option.
Each normalised score for each criterion has been multiplied by the agreed percentage weighting to give
final weighted scores (as percentages) for each option. These weighted scores have then been used to
rank the options.
Qualitative Evaluation
Where it has not been possible to evaluate criteria quantitatively, the options have been compared
relative to each other. The following criteria have been evaluated qualitatively:
Likelihood to gain planning permission
Flexibility / adaptability to changes in legislation
Availability of end markets
Each option has been scored from 1 to 5, where 1 is the poorly rated against the others. These scores
have subsequently been normalised to give values from 0 to 1, as for the quantitative evaluation.
2
WRATE electricity generation mix is forecast up to 2020.
173
Appendix 4c
Each normalised score for each criterion has been multiplied by the agreed percentage weighting to give
final weighted scores (as percentages) for each option. These weighted scores have then been used to
rank the options.
Sensitivities
A number of sensitivities have been tested on the waste flows. These are:
1) Lower source segregated recycling & composting rates are achieved – do not exceed 58% from
2015/16;
2) The facility operational date is delayed by one year – fully operational by 1st April 2015; and
3) Less BMW reduction is observed in MBT rejects – decreased from 25% BMW reduction to 10%
BMW reduction.
The effect of these sensitivities on the total cost, BMW diversion performance and recycling rates has
been examined. The effect of the sensitivities on the carbon footprint has not been calculated due to the
resources required to carry out the studies; the relative impact of each option is not considered to be
materially different from the base assumptions.
Total Cost
See section 8
Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint of each option has been determined using the Environment Agency’s WRATE tool
on waste flows for 2019/20. The assessment takes into account residual waste treatment and the
transport implications of waste deliveries and process outputs; waste and recyclate collections by
individual authorities have not been taken into consideration.
It should be recognised that the WRATE tool is somewhat prescriptive with a number of limitations;
therefore some of the output tonnages and assumptions do not match directly with those from the waste
flow modelling. Appendix 4e describes more fully the WRATE assessment process, results and
assumptions.
The results form the WRATE assessment of the carbon footprint of each option are presented below. A
stage breakdown is shown to assist with the interpretation of results. The results are expressed as
tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and a negative figure indicates a carbon benefit from that activity.
174
Appendix 4c
Carbon Footprint – tCO2 eq

Option Transport Transport –
– delivery process Recycling Disposal Facility Total
to facility outputs
1) Landfill 1,168 0 0 37,642 0 39,810
2a) 1 large (220ktpa)
EfW with bottom ash 927 1,565 -8,191 4,856 15,013 14,170
recycling
2b) 1 large (220ktpa)
EfW with no bottom 927 2,259 -9,322 5,015 15,013 13,891
ash recycling
3a) 2 smaller
(2x110ktpa) EfW with 927 1,565 -8,191 4,856 15,013 14,171
3b) 2 smaller
(2x110ktpa) EfW with
927 2,260 -9,322 5,015 15,013 13,892
no bottom ash
recycling
4a) MBT with RDF
927 1,590 -18,877 9,983 27,911 21,534
combusted on-site
4b) MBT with RDF
combusted on
927 3,365 -18,877 9,983 27,911 23,310
another site (under
Prosiect Gwyrdd)
The following conclusions can be made from the assessment:
Option 1 acts as a baseline scenario and, as expected, generates the highest carbon impact due
to the high impacts associated with landfilling of wastes.
The Energy from Waste options (2a, 2b, 3a and 3b) offer significant carbon savings in
comparison to option 1 attributed to positive impacts of recycling metals from bottom ash and
lower quantities of waste sent to landfill. These savings are balanced by the negative impacts of
additional transport, construction and operation of EfW facilities.
The MBT options (4a and 4b) again offer carbon savings in comparison to option 1, although of
less significance to the Energy from Waste options. Considerable savings are made through the
recycling of metals in the MBT process. However, these are significantly affected by the intensity
of constructing and operating two treatment facilities, higher quantities of process outputs to
landfill and, in the case of option 4b, additional transport of RDF to an off-site combustion facility.
It is important to recognise that the carbon footprint results are highly sensitive to transport distance
assumptions; the greater the distance the greater the carbon footprint. These results are based on the
agreed base assumptions.
It is also noted that there is no apparent impact from the construction and operation of two smaller EfW
facilities compared to a single larger one. This is due to the linear per tonne approach WRATE takes to
calculate the impact. In reality, it could be argued that the carbon footprint from building and operating
two smaller facilities would be greater than one, due to the additional materials, landtake etc required.
The carbon impacts from WRATE for recycling bottom ash are high, due to the energy intensive process
for producing secondary aggregates. It could be argued that in reality this is not an accurate picture as
the quarrying of virgin aggregates is a highly energy intensive activity.
175
Appendix 4c
BMW Diversion Performance

This criterion has been evaluated through the outputs of the waste flow modelling for each option. The
performance of each option in terms of BMW diverted through the treatment process has been compared
for the year 2019/20. The figures presented include diversion of BMW from project waste only; any
diversion of BMW from third party waste has not been taken into account.
The figure below shows the relative performance of each technology option in terms of the total amount of
BMW disposed to landfill. This includes residual waste that is disposed directly to landfill by the
authorities and not processed under Prosiect Gwyrdd.
BMW residual waste Total BMW landfilled EfW Total BMW landfilled MBT Combined LAS target
300,000
250,000
200,000
Tonnes BMW
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
10
12
14
16
18
22
24
27
29
33
35
06
07
08
09
11
13
15
17
19
20
21
23
25
26
28
30
31
32
34
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
The chart shows that the level of BMW in the residual waste is below the combined LAS targets for the
five authorities, whether the residual waste is treated or disposed to landfill. The combined LAS target
has been presented for indicative purposes only, as ‘pooling’ of LAS allowances is currently not permitted
by the Welsh Assembly Government.
The figure below shows the amount of BMW disposed to landfill from the treatment facility (from project
waste alone), determined in accordance with the Environment Agency’s mass balance approach.
176
Appendix 4c
BMW landfilled from EfW BMW landfilled from MBT
13,000
12,500
12,000
BMW tonnes
11,500
11,000
10,500
10,000
06
07
10
11
15
19
20
23
24
27
28
32
08
09
12
13
14
16
17
18
21
22
25
26
29
30
31
33
34
35
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
The Energy from Waste options (2 and 3) include the disposal of a reasonable level of material rejected
upfront; the MBT options (option 4) includes all process rejects, including partially stabilised organic
output. The assumptions behind the reject levels and process performance can be found in Appendix 4b.
As source segregated recycling and composting levels increase, the composition of the residual waste
changes, which is the reason for the step changes in the quantity of BMW landfilled from the process.
However, the criterion being evaluated is for the level of BMW diverted through the process, rather than
that being landfilled. Based on the level of BMW in the residual waste destined for treatment and the
quantity and nature of rejects and residues for landfill, the BMW diversion performance has been
determined, again, in accordance with the Environment Agency’s mass balance approach.
For the comparison year 2019/20, the BMW diversion performance through treatment alone is as
presented in the table below, along with the effect of applying the different sensitivity tests. It is clear that
the BMW diversion performance is very similar for all options. The MBT options divert slightly more BMW
than the Energy from Waste options; this is because materials are rejected from EfW prior to treatment,
whereas the rejects from BMT are assumed to have undergone some treatment and stabilisation. The
figures may be different in reality, as different MBT processes have different performance characteristics.
177
Appendix 4c
BMW diversion through treatment (tonnes)

Option Sensitivity 3 –
Base Sensitivity 1 – Sensitivity 2 –
lower BMW
assumptions lower R&C facility late
reduction
1) Landfill 0 0 0 0
2a) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with
62,412 71,872 62,412 n/a
2b) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with
62,412 71,872 62,412 n/a
no bottom ash recycling
3a) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW
62,412 71,872 62,412 n/a
with bottom ash recycling
3b) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW
62,412 71,872 62,412 n/a
with no bottom ash recycling
4a) MBT with RDF combusted
62,673 71,573 62,673 60,282
on-site
4b) MBT with RDF combusted
on another site (under Prosiect 62,673 71,573 62,673 60,282
Gwyrdd)
Contribution to Recycling & Composting Targets

This criterion has been evaluated through the outputs of the waste flow modelling for each option. The
performance of each option in terms of secondary recycling through the treatment facility is compared for
the year 2019/20; the figures do not take into account source-segregated recycling and composting
performance. The figures are presented as a percentage of MSW arisings in order to be consistent with
National Assembly for Wales Performance Indicator measurements.
The figure below shows the performance of each option in terms of its contribution to recycling and
composting rates. The data in the cart is based on the assumption that recycling bottom ash will count
towards the authorities’ recycling rates, as has recently been suggested (albeit ‘off the record’) by WAG.
178
Appendix 4c
Source separated R&C (option 1) EfW with BA recycled (options 2a & 3a)
EFW with no BA recycling (options 2b & 3b) MBT with BA from RDF recycled (options 4a & 4b)
80%
60%
40%
20%
07
10
12
15
17
20
22
25
27
30
32
35
06
08
09
11
13
14
16
18
19
21
23
24
26
28
29
31
33
34
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Recycling from the MBT options (options 4a and 4b) is from:
Metals recycled in the mechanical treatment element of the MBT
Bottom ash recycled post combustion of RDF
Recycling from the Energy from Waste options (options 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b) is from:
Metals extracted from the bottom ash
Bottom ash recycled as secondary aggregate
For the evaluation of the options, the secondary recycling performance in 2019/20 is used, as
summarised in the table below, along with the effect of the sensitivity testing. These figures only
represent recyclate from project waste; any contribution from third party waste is disregarded as it will not
count towards targets. The figures in parentheses represent the contribution if bottom ash recycling does
not count towards targets by WAG.
It is clear that the contribution to recycling and composting targets are very similar for all options (except
landfill). This is due to the high levels of source segregated recycling that have been assumed
throughout, which reduces the potential for additional secondary materials recovery.
179
Appendix 4c
Recycling contribution (% of MSW arisings exc inerts)

Option Sensitivity 3 –
Base Sensitivity 1 – Sensitivity 2 –
lower BMW
assumptions lower R&C facility late
reduction
1) Landfill 0 0 0 0
2a) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with
6.6% (1.2%) 7.2% (1.8%) 6.6% (1.2%) n/a
2b) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with
1.2% 1.8% 1.2% n/a
no bottom ash recycling
3a) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW
6.6% (1.2%) 7.2% (1.8%) 6.6% (1.2%) n/a
with bottom ash recycling
3b) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW
1.2% 1.8% 1.2% n/a
with no bottom ash recycling
4a) MBT with RDF combusted
5.7% (1.3%) 6.6% (1.9%) 5.7% (1.3%) 5.7% (1.3%)
on-site
4b) MBT with RDF combusted
on another site (under Prosiect 5.7% (1.3%) 6.6% (1.9%) 5.7% (1.3%) 5.7% (1.3%)
Gwyrdd)

Energy from Waste
Energy from Waste is a well-established technology, with over 20 plants in operation in the UK for
treatment of MSW. Diversion performance of BMW is related to the availability of the plant and the reject
rate, rather than on the combustion efficiency.
The technology has an excellent track record for operational performance using the moving grate
incineration technology for MSW. Some operational problems have been experienced with fluidised bed
technology for MSW treatment, but this is more reliable for treatment of refuse derived fuel.

MBT is still relatively new to the UK, but is more established in Europe as a ‘pre-treatment’ technology
prior to landfill. There are currently around six operational MBT plants in the UK for MSW, of varying
configurations. Shanks has two operational facilities in the UK (Frog Island in Rainham and Dumfries)
which produce RDF as the main output, as considered in this options appraisal.
There are many possible configurations for MBT, with the focus varying from anaerobic digestion to
aerobic composting, and the outputs and their uses varying accordingly. The individual components of
MBT are proven on MSW, such as materials recycling facility, in-vessel composting, but potential
interface problems exist between the stages, particularly if supplied by different technology providers.
Landfill
Landfill is a well-proven method for the management of MSW across the UK, Europe and worldwide.
There have been some operational problems associated with leachate and landfill gas management, but
landfill is considered as well-proven.
Summary of Scoring
The scores allocated to each option for the ‘proven on MSW’ criterion are summarised in the table below.
180
Appendix 4c
Relative score (1=poor,

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 5
2a) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with bottom ash recycling 4
2b) 1 large (220ktpa) EfW with no bottom ash recycling 4
3a) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW with bottom ash recycling 4
3b) 2 smaller (2x110ktpa) EfW with no bottom ash recycling 4
4a) MBT with RDF combusted on-site 3
4b) MBT with RDF combusted on another site (under Prosiect Gwyrdd) 3
Likelihood of attaining planning permission

Energy from Waste
The concerns over planning permission for Energy from Waste facilities are a significant issue, due to
public perception and concerns over facility location, much of which results from the standard of waste
incineration in the 1970s. There has been concern that incineration may prevent waste minimisation and
recycling activities. However, recent trends in the provision of EfW facilities have been for appropriately
sized facilities which take into account waste minimisation and increases in recycling activities, while
recovering energy from the remainder of the waste stream. In addition, there is increased consideration
for further recovery of recyclable material (e.g. metals and bottom ash) from the waste, either prior to or
post combustion, which may improve public perception. Energy recovery and public perception aspects
may be enhanced if heat is recovered from the waste as well as power, but the potential for this is site
specific, depending on available ‘neighbours’ as heat sinks.
In addition to public perception issues, the key environmental and planning risks relate to traffic
movements, visual intrusion and emissions related to the facility.
Environmental and health concerns over incineration have been the focus of attention for many years,
and the emissions standards under which they operate have been enhanced significantly through design
changes and legislative requirements. The Waste Incineration Directive imposes strict limits on
emissions, such as dioxins. Furthermore, in 2004, Defra carried out a study on the health effects of
waste management options which did not find a conclusive link between the current generation of EfW
facilities and adverse health effects.

There is potentially less public opposition to MBT than EfW due to perception, as it is non-thermal in
nature. However this solution still requires RDF combustion facilities, which could be viewed similarly to
EfW. Furthermore, MBT requires a larger site footprint with two facilities.
For the combustion of RDF in a designated facility there are implications on achieving the required
planning permissions for an additional facility within the required timescales.
The environmental impacts of MBT are minimised through design of the plan housing, and the key issues
are similar to those for EfW described above – traffic impacts and visual intrusion. MBT potentially has
less visual intrusion than EfW as it does not have a stack; however, a stack will still be required for the
RDF combustion element. There are potentially more traffic impacts associated with MBT due to the
greater number of process outputs, this is particularly so where RDF is combusted at another site.
181
Appendix 4c
Landfill
There is insufficient landfill capacity for Prosiect Gwyrdd’s residual waste across the contract period being
considered. There is limited void space in South Wales and the UK as a whole, and the likelihood of
developing new landfill facilities is low due to the availability of suitable land.
Summary of Scoring
It is recognised that the likelihood of gaining planning permission is a site specific issue. The scores in the
following table relate to the planning likelihood related to the perception of the facility, recognising that two
sites over two facilities present a greater challenge than obtaining planning permission for one, despite
addressing the proximity principle.

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 1
Flexibility / adaptability to changes in legislation

Energy from Waste
Modern EfW facilities are designed to meet strict environmental and emissions requirements, and are
carefully monitored under PPC or environmental permitting legislation to ensure compliance. It is
considered that as long as plants are regularly maintained, the risk of facility obsolescence due to
changes in legislation of the contract period is relatively low, and plant modifications can be made as
required.
It is likely that future legislation will impose minimum energy efficiency levels for thermal treatment plants;
which can be addressed during the design stage as they are likely to be introduced over the next few
years.

MBT will be monitored by the regulator under the environmental permitting regime. There is the potential
for tighter controls on the use of bio-stabilised organic output from MBT plants on land, but this is not
relevant for this options appraisal, which assumes this material is disposed to landfill.
The considerations of RDF combustion will be similar to those for EfW. There are two processes for this
option, which makes it more vulnerable to changes in legislation.
Landfill
Landfill is a well-proven waste management method, with a long track-record in the UK. New and
existing landfills are required to meet certain standards under the environmental permitting regime. It is
considered that any new legislation associated with landfill sites is likely to be the most stringent of all the
options due to legislation driven by Europe and the Landfill Directive.
182
Appendix 4c
Scoring Summary
The table below summarises the scores allocated to each option for this criterion.

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 2

Energy from Waste
Energy from Waste can accommodate a wide range of compositions within a given calorific value
envelope. The capacity of the plant will be a factor of the quantity and composition of the waste
feedstock.
EfW is susceptible to wastes with high moisture content or high levels of non-combustible materials. In
addition, certain large contraries, such as gas canisters and car engines, can cause operational problems
if not removed from the waste prior to the thermal process.
Energy from Waste has the advantage of being able to process hazardous and clinical wastes.

MBT can be reasonably robust to variations in feedstock, but the volume of the various output streams
may change, e.g. recyclates, RDF and organic output, depending on the composition of the waste.
Assuming the organic output is disposed to landfill, the technology is more flexible to process wastes with
low levels of organic content, as there will be no requirement for the output to be of any particular quality.
Furthermore, wastes with low levels of organic content may not undergo such noticeable reductions in
BMW content. The residence time of the biological stage may need to be adjusted depending on the
waste composition and the quality of the outputs required.
The biological stage may be susceptible to moisture content and this must be properly controlled. MBT is
unable to process hazardous, toxic or clinical wastes.
Where RDF is produced, the combustion process will require the RDF to have a composition within a
given calorific value envelope, as for the EfW process.
Landfill
Landfill is capable of accepting a wide range of wastes and is inherently flexible to changes in waste
composition, subject to compliance with Waste Acceptance Criteria and operating permits.
Summary of Scoring
The scores allocated to each option under the ‘flexibility to changes in waste composition’ criterion are
summarised in the table below.
183
Appendix 4c

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 5

Energy from Waste
Energy from Waste is not flexible to changes in waste quantity as the facility would be sized for the
anticipated throughput and calorific value of the waste feedstock. The facility will need to be appropriately
sized to take into account anticipated waste growth over the contract period. If the project waste is less
than anticipated, there may be flexibility to accept third party waste.
A modular approach could be adopted, but it is likely that over 50ktpa of waste to make an additional
processing line viable, perhaps more depending on the economics and the specific technology.
184
Appendix 4c

MBT lends itself well to a modular approach, increasing its adaptability to changes in waste quantity. It
may also be possible to change the residence time in the biological stage to reflect changes in waste
throughput, but this could impact on the level of stabilisation of the biodegradable matter.
The capacity of RDF combustion facilities will be fixed based on the tonnage and calorific value, as
discussed under EfW.
Landfill
Landfill is inherently flexible to changes in waste quantity, although limitations on capacity are due to
available voidspace and limits imposed through permitting and licensing.
Summary of Scoring
All waste management facilities will be limited in their throughput by licensing and permitting conditions.
The scoring in the table below reflects the level of inherent flexibility associated with the technology type
and does not make any judgement over permitting conditions.

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 3
Availability of end markets

Energy from Waste & Mechanical Biological Treatment
Landfill capacity is required for upfront rejects from EfW and MBT, or for the bottom ash that is not
recycled. It is recognised that landfill capacity in the region is scarce, particularly over the entire contract
period.
Bottom ash from EfW or RDF combustion can be used as a secondary aggregate for bitumen products,
concrete, pipe bedding, general fill or landfill capping material, subject to it meeting the required
specification. South Wales is home to a number of aggregates companies, including Lafarge, Aggregate
Industries and RMC, which may be interested in using recycled bottom ash in their products.
Air pollution control residues from EfW and RDF combustion plants are classified as hazardous and must
be disposed or treated as such. Disposal points for hazardous waste are limited across Wales and the
UK, and the material is likely to require transportation to a suitable licensed facility in South West
England.
Metals extracted from bottom ash and extracted through the mechanical stage of MBT can be recycled;
UK markets for recycled metals are mature; South Wales is home to Sims and EMR in Cardiff.
185
Appendix 4c
Power markets for electricity generation from EfW and RDF combustion are available. Connection to the
grid is required and this would need to be negotiated on a project specific basis.
Landfill
Landfill gas can be captured and used for power generation.
186
Appendix 4c
Summary of Scoring
No detailed market studies have been undertaken as part of this options appraisal. The comments above
and the scoring in the table below are based on general views of the relevant markets.

Option
5=good)
1) Landfill 5
Evaluation Summary
Each residual waste management option has been evaluated against the agreed criteria, as outlined
above. The tables below show the actual values and normalised scores for each option against each
criterion. The normalised scores have been weighted against the agreed weightings to give the final
scores and rankings.
For clarity, cells highlighted in red show the ‘worst’ performing option for a given criterion, while cells
highlighted green show the ‘best’ performing option.
A number of sensitivity tests have been applied to the economic appraisal, and these are described in
Appendix 8g.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of the evaluation criteria to the base case options have also been applied as
follows:
Removal of ‘cost’ criterion from the scoring, with re-apportionment of weightings applied to other
criteria; and
Bottom ash that is recycled is not counted by WAG towards reportable recycling rates.
187
Appendix 4c
Scoring Summary – Base Case

On each of the following tables, scores culminate in a final column ranking where 1 = the best option and
7 = the worst option.


treatment (2019/20)
Planning likelihood
Proven on MSW
2019/20)
Total
Option
Weighting 10% 40% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 100%
Raw scores
1) Landfill 39,810 313.9 5 2 5 3 5 0 0 1
Normalised scores
1) Landfill 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1) Landfill 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 5
Min (worst) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26
Max (best) 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.89
188
Appendix 4c
Scoring Summary – Base Case, cost criterion removed


treatment (2019/20)
Planning likelihood
Proven on MSW
2019/20)
Total
Option
Weighting 10% 18.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 18.0% 100.0%
Raw scores
1) Landfill 39,810 313.9 5 2 5 3 5 - 0.0% 1
Normalised scores
1) Landfill 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1) Landfill 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 6
189
Appendix 4c
Scoring Summary – Base Case, bottom ash does not count towards recycling rates


treatment (2019/20)
Planning likelihood
Proven on MSW
2019/20)
Total
Option
Weighting 10% 40% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 100%
Raw scores
1) Landfill 39,810 313.9 5 2 5 3 5 0 0 1
Normalised scores
1) Landfill 0.00 0.36 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1) Landfill 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 5
190
Appendix 4d
Appendix 4d: Bankability

Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance
with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
191
Appendix 4e
Appendix 4e: Carbon Footprint Assessment

Introduction
Present waste management practices have been identified as key contributors to climate change,
predominantly through the generation of carbon dioxide and methane from the degradation of
biodegradable wastes in landfill. To reduce the impacts of current waste management systems, targets
have been set through the EC Landfill Directive to reduce biodegradable municipal solid wastes sent to
landfill to 35% of 1995 levels by 2020. In Wales this is implemented through the Landfill Allowances
Scheme (LAS). Significant changes in waste management systems are required to meet these targets.
This study has been undertaken to assess the environmental impacts of treatment options for residual
waste produced by the Prosiect Gwyrdd Partnership. This assessment is not designed to be used in
isolation, but alongside social, economic and planning assessments, and the results should be used for
comparative purposes only.
The impacts on global warming are a commonly-used indicator in assessing the impacts of waste
management systems. An impact assessment method has been developed by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) based upon the global warming effect over 100 years for various greenhouse
gases. The impact is measured in terms of carbon dioxide (CO 2) equivalents (i.e. the amount of CO2 that
would have to be emitted to have the same impact) by taking into account the different global warming
potentials of different greenhouse gases. For example, methane (CH4) is estimated to have a global
warming effect 23 times that of CO2 during a 100-year timeframe, so each tonne of methane emitted is
expressed as 23 tonnes CO2 equivalent.
This assessment has been undertaken using the Environment Agency’s Waste and Resources
Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) package, version 1.0.
WRATE
WRATE has been developed as a scientifically and technically valid lifecycle tool to assess the
environmental costs and benefits of integrated waste management systems. The programme enables the
comparison of a current reference system with alternatives for future waste management systems. It
identifies burdens at each stage of a process and every stage of the waste management process. This
provides a thorough understanding of the impacts at each stage, identifying areas for potential
improvement.
Detailed data has been gathered by the Environment Agency from technology suppliers, manufacturers
and utilities providers to fully assess the impacts associated with each process. Data is available in most
instances for the whole life of each process, thus taking into account construction, operational and
decommissioning impacts.
A detailed energy database is provided, projected to 2020, to allow for accurate comparison of energy
production on baseline conditions. This includes:
Electricity generation mix (including predicted changes in fuel source);
Energy generation efficiency;
Electricity losses during electricity transport; and
Marginal electricity production.
A waste composition database is used to fully assess user defined waste arisings throughout the process
containing:
A pre-defined elemental waste composition for each fraction;
Default waste composition;
Calorific value; and
192
Appendix 4e
Moisture content of the waste.

Waste arisings can vary widely between authorities, often depending upon demographics and available
recycling services. To account for this the WRATE user is able to generate a bespoke waste arising for
each study. 17 headline categories are identified which are further broken down, totalling 82 sub-
categories in all. This can impact significantly on treatment facilities in comparison to baseline data due to
changes in moisture content and calorific value.
The main stages of integrated waste management systems that can be modelled in WRATE are:
Waste arisings;
Waste collection – containers, sacks and vehicles;
Waste transport – waste vehicles and private vehicles;
Pre-treatment, sorting and transfer – civic amenity sites, MRFs, transfer stations;
Materials recycling;
Waste treatment and recovery – composting, incineration with energy recovery, anaerobic
digestion, advanced thermal treatments, MBT; and
Disposal – landfill and incineration without energy recovery.
For each stage a number of options are identified and burdens assessed against the baseline operating
conditions of each facility. The three main burdens taken into account when calculating environmental
impacts are:
Construction and operational inputs and outputs;
Infrastructure; and
Avoided impacts due to materials and energy displacement.
Limitations
Whilst WRATE is able to comprehensively assess set criteria there are a number of limitations generic to
every assessment that need to be identified, including:
Data is limited to existing scientific knowledge;
Information is limited to the Environment Agency’s waste analysis research programme;
There are a limited number of user entered process parameters;
The software is not designed for product life cycle analysis;
There is no capability to assess the implications of WEEE recycling; and
There is an upper limit of 2020 on the electricity mix.
Further limitations relating specifically to this study are identified in later in this assessment.
Prosiect Gwyrdd Assessment

Scope of study
This study has been undertaken to assess the environmental impacts of residual waste treatment
technologies after materials have been removed for recycling and composting. It covers only that waste
identified by the Partnership as available for waste treatment (maximum of 35% MSW arisings), in line
with the project scope. It does not take into account the collection methods of each authority. The
elements of the waste management system covered by this assessment are:
Transfer of waste from the authorities to treatment / disposal facilities;
193
Appendix 4e
Transfer of process outputs and rejects from treatment facilities to further treatment or final
disposal;
Treatment and final disposal of process residues and rejects;
Process outputs to recyclate markets.
Seven options have been modelled in line with those agreed by the Partnership authorities. These are:
1: Direct to landfill;
2a: One large Energy from Waste (EfW) plant with incinerator bottom ash recycling (BA)
extracting both metals and secondary aggregate for recycling;
2b: One large EfW plant with BA recycling extracting only metals for recycling;
3a: Two small EfW plant with BA recycling extracting both metals and secondary aggregate
for recycling;
3b: Two small EfW plant with BA recycling extracting only metals for recycling;
4a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) producing refuse derived fuel (RDF) for
combustion on the same site in a purpose-built EfW facility with BA recycling extracting
secondary recycled aggregate only;
4b: MBT producing RDF for combustion on a different site in a purpose built EfW facility with
BA recycling extracting secondary recycled aggregate only.
Option 1 includes only residual waste produced by the Partnership authorities, in the same quantity for
which treatment is being considered. Options 2, 3 and 4 cover residual MSW produced by the authorities
plus a quantity of residual third party waste. It is recognised that there will be additional residual waste
destined for landfill associated with all options, but this has not been taken into account as it is agreed by
the Partnership that it lies outside Prosiect Gwyrdd.
Limitations of this study

There are a number of limitations to this study related both to data and processes within WRATE and
information provided by the Partnership. These include:
Limited vehicles available within WRATE;
No hazardous waste landfill;
No landfill with gas capture;
Limited range of technologies, with associated restrictions;
It has been assumed that the distance travelled from each authority to the treatment facility will
be the same for options 2 and 3, as no specific site has been identified. In reality the two facilities
in option 3 will not be on the same site and as such distances from each authority to the nearest
facility will vary. This will effect carbon impacts relating to transport;
The linear per tonne approach adopted by WRATE in relation to treatment technologies does not
account for economies of scale associated with building one large plant as compared with two
smaller plants. The EA state that such burdens “are likely to be small as capital burdens in life
cycle assessment are rarely significant and normally amount to less than 5-10% of the burden,
especially when applied over the lifetime of the facility”. However, they do acknowledge this as a
limitation within WRATE;
No data for distance travelled by 3rd party waste; and
Quantities of metal and secondary aggregate material are not identified within the output tonnage
of BA within WRATE. Therefore transport impacts of recycling and disposing of each stream
cannot be taken into consideration.
194
Appendix 4e
Input data
Waste arising data has been provided by each authority in the Partnership and projections made to 2020.
Input data for each scenario can be found in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1: Option 1 waste arisings
Quantity /
Waste Stream %
tonnes
Glass 7,199 3.78%
Paper/card 33,435 17.57%
Ferrous metals 6,566 3.45%
Non ferrous metals 1,125 0.59%
Plastic film 8,995 4.73%
Dense plastic 14,455 7.60%
Textiles 9,404 4.94%
Green waste 10,634 5.59%
Kitchen waste 19,318 10.15%
Timber 6,909 3.63%
WEEE 5,475 2.88%
Potentially haz 3,898 2.05%
Misc comb 30,723 16.14%
Misc non comb 13,790 7.25%
Fines 14,002 7.36%
Absorbent hygiene products 4,377 2.30%
Total 190,313 100%
195
Appendix 4e
Table 2: Options 2, 3 & 4 waste arisings

Quantity /
Waste Stream %
tonnes
Glass 8,922 4.06%
Paper/Card 39,670 18.03%
Ferrous metals 7,986 3.63%
Non ferrous metals 1,369 0.62%
Plastic film 9,827 4.47%
Dense plastic 15,791 7.18%
Textiles 9,939 4.52%
Green waste 14,405 6.55%
Kitchen waste 24,603 11.18%
Timber 7,741 3.52%
WEEE 6,069 2.76%
Potentially haz 4,136 1.88%
Misc comb 32,801 14.91%
Misc non comb 16,165 7.35%
Fine 15,516 7.05%
Absorbent hygiene products 5,060 2.30%
Total 220,000 100%
The breakdowns shown here differ slightly from the overall composition of residual waste used in the
waste flow modelling. This is due to an additional waste stream “absorbent hygiene products” (disposable
nappies) not identified in the composition but required by WRATE. An interpretation of the data has been
made in line with baseline data within WRATE to account for this, resulting in 1.9% being removed from
miscellaneous combustibles and 0.4% from textiles in the overall composition in order to populate this
category.
In order to assess the impacts of transport, treatment and final disposal relating to the defined waste
arisings a number of assumptions have been made, see Table 3.
196
Appendix 4e
Table 3 Project assumptions

Transport
Transfer from authority

Distance travelled / km
to treatment/disposal
Caerphilly (Ystrad Mynach – Trecatti

19.3
landfill)
Cardiff (Cardiff – Lamby Way landfill) 4.8
6 x 4 RCV ULS Diesel, 26 Monmouthshire (Usk – Calne, Wiltshire) 93.3
tonne, 13 tonne payload
Newport (Newport – Lamby landfill Way) 4.8
Option 1
Vale of Glamorgan (Cowbridge –

41.8
Trecatti landfill)
Transfer from authority

to treatment/disposal
Caerphilly (Ystrad Mynach – Cardiff) 24.1

Cardiff (Cardiff – Cardiff) 3.2
Options 2, 3 & 4
6 x 4 RCV ULS Diesel, 26 Monmouthshire (Usk – Cardiff) 43.5

tonne, 13 tonne payload Newport (Newport – Cardiff) 24.1
Vale of Glamorgan (Cowbridge –

24.1
Cardiff)
Transfer from treatment to

disposal / markets
IBA to recyclate market 16.1

IBA to landfill 40.2
Ferrous to recyclate markets 16.1
Articulated truck, Diesel, 23 Ferrous to landfill 40.2
tonne, 8 tonne payload Non ferrous to recyclate markets 16.1
APC to hazardous landfill 120.7
Process rejects to landfill 40.2
RDF to EfW 32.2
Treatment and recovery
EfW Billingham, large, power only
MBT EcoDeco process
Landfill
Clay liner / clay cap
197
Appendix 4e
Table 4 below outlines the outputs generated by each of the treatment options. An exact match to that
predicted by the waste flow modelling has not been possible due to pre-determined calculations within
WRATE which are affected by quantity and composition of input waste.
Table 4: WRATE outputs (tonnes)
Option 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
BA generated 59,032 59,032 59,032 59,032 42,080 42,080

APC generated 6,562 6,562 6,562 6,562 4,677 4,677
Actual waste 183,607 183,607 183,607 183,607 112,993 112,993
incinerated
RDF generated 0 0 0 0 112,993 112,993
MBT metals generated 0 0 0 0 8,168 8,168
Process rejects to 32,060 32,060 32,060 32,060 46,594 46,594
landfill
Carbon Footprint
Carbon impacts of each option are presented in Table 5. For ease of interpretation impacts are presented
by key elements of transport, recycling, treatment and recovery and landfill. Results are expressed in
positive and negative terms, the positive figures being an increase in carbon footprint, the negative being
a reduction in carbon footprint.
Table 5: Carbon footprint (kg CO2 equivalent)
European
Treatment &
Transport Recycling Landfill Total person
recovery
equivalent
Option 1 1,167,680 0 0 37,642,260 38,809,940 3,806
Option 2a 2,491,645 -8,190,740 15,012,878 4,856,209 14,169,992 1,127
Option 2b 3,186,087 -9,322,199 15,012,878 5,014,517 13,891,283 1,105
Option 3a 2,492,275 -8,190,740 15,012,878 4,856,209 14,170,622 1,127
Option 3b 3,186,717 -9,322,199 15,012,878 5,014,517 13,981,913 1,105
Option 4a 2,516,419 -18,876,625 27,910,756 9,983,184 21,533,734 1,712
Option 4b 4,292,262 -18,876,625 27,910,756 9,983,184 23,309,577 1,853
198
Appendix 4e
The last column translates the total carbon footprint into an indicative equivalent number of European
people going about their normal activities. This can be read as ‘option 1 has a carbon footprint equivalent
to an additional 3,806 European people on the planet for the studied year’.
Transport
Transport includes that from the authority to the treatment facility plus that from the treatment facility to
final disposal or recyclate markets.
Option 1 covers only a single transfer of waste from the authority to final disposal. This produces a lower
transport impact than other options which include additional transport from treatment facilities to final
disposal. However it must be highlighted that the impacts of equivalent transfer in options 2-4 are lower
due to the lesser transfer distance to the modelled treatment facilities than transfer to current landfills.
Impacts of options 2-4 are greater than option 1 due to the two stages of transport required. That from the
authority to the treatment facility, plus transportation of process rejects and products to the final disposal
point.
The difference between 2a and 2b and 3a and 3b respectively can be attributed to additional transport
distance associated with sending secondary aggregate material from BA to landfill instead of more local
recycling facilities.
Although options 2 and 3 deal with the same quantities of input waste and process outputs a small
difference is experienced due to the cumulative distance associated with transportation of APC residues.
The quantity of APC from the two EfW plants in options 3a and 3b does not break down equally into
vehicle loads, as such WRATE has accounted for a greater number of transfers than in options 2a and 2b
resulting in a higher cumulative distance and subsequent higher carbon footprint over the studied year.
The difference between options 4a and 4b can be attributed solely to the additional transfer of RDF to an
off site RDF combustion plant.
Recycling
Metals and BA have been identified from the waste flow modelling as the predominant recyclable
materials to be taken into account in this WRATE assessment. Carbon impacts of recyclate are
calculated using the burdens required to process the material and the avoided burdens of extracting virgin
ferrous and non-ferrous material and aggregates. Due to the high intensity of metal extraction the
recycling of metals yields large carbon savings, with aluminium giving a particularly high saving when
compared to any other recyclable material. However recycling of BA as a recycled secondary aggregate
does not make any carbon saving, and in fact increases the carbon footprint. This has been attributed to
the energy intensive treatment methods used to crush, screen and grade this material into usable fraction
sizes. It could be argued that this is a true reflection of the impacts associated with recycled secondary
aggregate, given the high intensity activity connected with virgin aggregate extraction.
Options 2a and 3a and options 2b and 3b respectively produce an identical carbon footprint as they are
dealing with identical quantities of recyclate in the form of BA, comprising ferrous and non-ferrous metals
and a secondary recycled aggregate.
Differences in impacts between options 2a and 2b and options 3a and 3b respectively can be attributed to
the recycling of aggregate and metals from BA in options 2a and 3a and the subsequent increased impact
associated with secondary recycled aggregate from BA as discussed above. Options 2b and 3b recycle
only metals from the BA and have a subsequently lower carbon impact.
Options 4a and 4b have significantly positive impacts when compared to options 2 and 3 due to the
higher yield of recyclate metals from the MBT process.
Treatment and recovery

As outlined above limitations within WRATE prevent economies of scale being reflected in the
environmental impacts of facilities. Subsequently options 2 and 3 yield identical carbon impacts as they
are dealing with the same quantities of waste.
199
Appendix 4e
Carbon impacts of option 4 are higher due to the use of two facilities, an MBT plant and EfW plant. It is
noted that although the EfW facility associated with option 4 utilises the same technology as options 2
and 3 and is dealing with 40% less waste the carbon impact of the facility is greater. This is attributed to
the difference in input waste composition, options 2 and 3 being residual waste, option 4 being RDF.
WRATE calculates impacts based upon baseline waste inputs, calorific value of waste and related energy
outputs for standard operation of the facility.
Landfill
Option 1 generates the highest carbon impact in relation to landfill with all residual waste being sent to
landfill.
Options 2a and 3a offer the lowest carbon impacts relating to landfill as they send the lowest quantity of
waste to landfill, that being only APC residues and up front rejects from the EfW facility.
Options 2b and 3b yield a slightly higher carbon impact for landfill due to the addition of the aggregate
element of BA to landfill following the extraction of metals compared to options 2a and 3a.
Options 4a and 4b yield noticeably higher carbon impacts. This can be attributed to the landfilling of all
MBT process outputs (other than RDF and metals) plus APC residues from the RDF combustion plant.
Conclusion
Option 1 acts as a baseline scenario and, as expected generates the highest carbon impact due to the
high impacts associated with landfilling of wastes.
Options 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b offer significant carbon savings in comparison to option 1 attributed to positive
impacts of recycling metals from BA and lower quantities of waste sent to landfill. These savings are
balanced by the negative impacts of additional transport and construction and operation of EfW facilities.
Options 4a and 4b again offer carbon savings in comparison to option 1, although not of the order of the
EfW options. Considerable savings are made through the recycling of metals in the MBT process.
However, this is significantly affected by the intensity of operating two treatment facilities, higher
quantities of process outputs to landfill and, in the case of option 4b additional transport to an off site
combustion facility.
200
Appendix 5a
Appendix 5a: Project Risk Register
The Tables opposite indicate Severe risk – must be managed by senior management with a detailed plan;
High risk – detailed research and management planning required at senior levels;
the method of ranking and rating Major risk – senior management attention is needed;
Significant risk – management responsibility must be specified;
identified risks through consideration of
Moderate risk – manage by specific monitoring or response procedures;
the likelihood and potential Low risk – manage by routine procedures
consequences of their occurrence. Trivial risk – unlikely to need specific application of resources.
Responsibility levels for management

of Risks based on their severity
201
Appendix 5a
The matrix opposite shows the

categorisation of risk severity by colour
code, based on risk likelihood and potential
consequences.
The colour coding is maintained throughout

the tables that follow.
Impact
Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5 Greater than 20 Severe 7
1 1. Trivial 2. Trivial 3. Low 4. Moderate 5. Significant 15 or 16 High 6
2 2. Trivial 4. Low 6. Moderate 8. Significant 10. Major 10 or 12 Major 5
3 3. Low 6. Moderate 9. Significant 12. Major 15. High 5,8,9 Significant 4
4 4. Moderate 8. Significant 12. Major 16. High 20. Severe 4 or 6 Moderate 3
5 5. Significant 10. Major 15. High 20. Severe 25. Severe 3 or 4 Low 2
1 or 2 Trivial 1
Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
202
Appendix 5a
Financial Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Risk Ref Description Risk Mitigation Strategy Residual Risk Risk Owner
Fin 1 Affordability gap cannot be bridged due to (a) 4 5 7 20. Severe (a) OBC affordability identifies anticipated level of funding 4 4 6 16. High XX
no additional funding from WAG for project required and WAG and their advisors are being engaged in OBC
and (b) shortfall in RSG process. Examining all funding routes and opportunities. (b)
Seeking agreement with WAG on level of RSG at early stage. At
this stage, current acticipated outcome from WAG is expected to
be October 2008. Lack of clarity over likely level of support from
WAG remains a key project concern.
Fin 2 Tenders received have higher costs than 2 5 5 10. Major Outline Business Case assesses cost of reference project 1 4 3 4. Moderate XX
anticipated including contingencies and defines the project's affordability
envelope. The Members' commitment on affordability will be
based on the affordability envelope. Management of procurement
risks is key to minimising the risk of this happening. Procurement
risk management to be prioritised. Early indications of likely cost
of project will be sought from tenderers. Manage through
appropriate and considered management of the Competitive
Dialogue process and provide early indications in relation to
affordability to contractors.
Fin 3 Cost of procurement process is prohibitively 3 5 6 15. High Agreement of procurement costs and contributions to be secured 3 3 4 9. XX
high for Prosiect Gwyrdd partners from partners. Procurement programme will be agreed which will Significant
determine duration of procurement. Contingencies to be factored
in to ensure adequate resources available. Manage through
appropriately resourced and considered management of the
Competitive Dialogue process.
Fin 4 Cost of tendering process is prohibitively high 4 4 6 16. High Adherence to procurement timetable. Comprehensive scope of 3 3 4 9. XX
for bidders, resulting in few tenderers project to be developed that is attractive to market. Information Significant
Pack and other pre-procurement preparation to ensure bidding
costs for bidders minimised. Bidders Day to be carried out.
Manage through appropriate and considered management of the
Competitive Dialogue process to allow bidders to effectively
manage such costs.
203
Appendix 5a
Fin 5 State aid issues arise 3 4 5 12. Major Sound legal advice will be sought and the project structured 1 3 2 3. Low XX
accordingly.
Fin 6 Project is not bankable 3 5 6 15. High Only proven technologies will be considered. Bankability of 1 3 2 3. Low XX
technologies has been assessed by Partnership's Financial
Advisor. Contract structure and payment mechanism will be
standardised where appropriate. Funders to be invited to Bidders
Day event.
Fin 7 Landfill tax increases beyond that envisaged 3 3 4 9. Sensitivities testing the impact of changes in landfill tax on 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
Significant affordability. Exposure to level of landfill tax itself cannot be
mitigated but Partnership is focusing on Technical solutions that
seek to minimise the amount of waste that goes to landfill and
therefore will minimise the Project's exposure to landfill tax.
Fin 8 Cost of transport increases beyond that 3 3 4 9. Affordability modelling includes X% per annum inflation allowance 3 2 3 6. Moderate XX
envisaged Significant for transportation cost inflation over the evaluation period.
Partnership Authorities to consider impact of this risk on their
transportation costs relating to taking their residual waste to all
bidders' proposed solutions. Information redacted relating to the
financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure
Rules.
Fin 9 Financial failure of contractor 3 5 6 15. High This risk relates to the financial failure of the eventual contracting 1 3 2 3. Low XX
party (e.g. contractor or SPV). Tenderers will have to pre-qualify
and demonstrate they have the financial capabilities to take on
this contract. Appropriate pre-qualification thresholds will be set.
Whether the scheme is on or off balance sheet is a consideration.
If the scheme is externally funded, the funder will have step-in
rights under the funder's direct agreement (ahead of the rights of
the Councils) together with a parent company guarantee.
204
Appendix 5a
Fin 10 Uncertainty in inflation rates 3 3 4 9. Partnership recognises impact of different inflation rates and has 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
Significant modelled different rates of inflation for different types of cost (e.g.
Average Earnings Index for wages, Baxter indices for transport
related costs). Sensitivities have been used to appraise impact
and significance of changes in underlying inflation assumptions on
options appraisal, affordability analysis and cost of treatment
contract. Contract payment mechanism will address indexation
risks such as to improve value for money.
Fin 11 Uncertainty in financing costs 3 3 4 9. Risk that base interest rates increase over time. Affordability 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX
Significant analysis includes a buffer of X% over the base rate for prudence.
Risk will be project's funder post contract signature (the payment
made by the Partnership post contract signature will not vary with
ineterst rates). Information redacted relating to the financial or
business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with
Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
Fin 12 Uncertainty in currency markets 3 3 4 9. Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX
Significant the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access
to Information Procedure Rules. Exchange rate risk is considered
as part of affordability modelling optimism bias and risk
contingency allowance. Procurement documentation to address
exchange rate risk.
Fin 13 Uncertainty over third party revenue 3 3 4 9. Types and levels of income from third party sources (e.g. third 2 2 2 4. Low XX
Significant party waste, recyclable materials, sale of energy). Impact on
affordability will be managed through choice of prudent
assumptions. Contract documentation and payment mechanism to
address 3rd party revenue risks in order to deliver value for
money, though the final risk allocation will be specific to each
technical solution and contractor.
Fin 14 Risk that an appropriate payment mechanism 3 3 4 9. Defra's (WIDIP's) standard Payment Mechanism will be utilised. 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
is not put in place to ensure value for money Significant Partnerships' advisors will work with the Partnership to develop
and for the benefits of the Council's standardised structure where appropriate. Moderate risk until
appropriate incentives Market Testing completed.
205
Appendix 5a
Fin 15 Longer term financial forecasts are not 4 3 5 12. Major A number of key risks have been assessed and a number of 1 3 2 3. Low XX
available to accurately determine the sensitivities have been run to to determine the impact of these
affordability envelope risks on the project's affordability. The affordability envelope has
been set by analysing the results presented by the sensitivities
and selecting a combination of key risks to set a prudent overall
affordability envelope.
Fin 16 Change in level of LAS fines imposed by 1 5 4 5. Application LAS in Wales may change WAG to consult and 1 5 4 5. XX
WAG Significant consider WLGA and authority concerns prior to any amendments Significant
of LAS allowances but difficult to forecast. European changes
beyond 2019/20 will be monitored. It is assumed that current
allowances, fines and EU regulatory and policy drivers will remain.
Options Appraisal analysis considers impact of different LAS fine
levels. Continue to engage with WAG in order to pre-empt any
changes.
Fin 17 Changes to the scope and level of taxation 2 2 2 4. Low Shadow tariff and therefore project affordability is based on latest 2 2 2 4. Low XX
(corporation, capital allowances and budget announcement. Financial advisors' tax team advising.
Employers and pension tax) may affect the Impact low as UK government policy is very sensitive to impact
cost of the project increases in tax have on UK competitiveness. Change in tax
regime announced on 2007/08 budget saw lowering of corporation
tax but there are proposed changes in capital allowance regime
that are likely to offset this reduction. Risk in change in corporation
tax risk will be contractor's risk post contract signature.
Fin 18 Changes in the rate of VAT may increase the 2 1 1 2. Trivial Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX
costs of the project the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access
to Information Procedure Rules.
Fin 19 Changes in VAT legislation other than 2 1 1 2. Trivial as above 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX

changes in the rate of VAT payable
Fin 20 Additional burden from introduction of an 1 2 1 2. Trivial UK government rejected idea of incineration tax in 2004 Gordon 1 2 1 2. Trivial XX
incineration tax Brown statement "the Government is not convinced that there is a
strong case for the introduction of a tax on incinerated waste."
This risk will be allocated on the basis of the PUK market
accepted derogations from SoPC4 in the contract.
Fin 21 Uninsurable: there is a risk that some risks 1 3 2 3. Low Risk to be addressed by following SoPC4 standard drafting in 1 3 3. Low XX
become uninsurable relation to uninsurable risks in the contract.
206
Appendix 5a
Fin 22 There is a risk that insurance premiums 2 2 2 4. Low Construction and operation of treatment facility will require 2 2 4. Low XX
increase as a result of general market insurances. Required insurances to be set out in contract.
conditions Specialist insurance advisor to be procured to provide advice on
contract issues relating to insurance. Risk of insurance premium
increases to be addressed by following SoPC4 standard drafting
in relation to benchmarking of insurance costs in the contract.
Fin 23 Estimated costs of transferring employment 1 1 1 1. Trivial not applicable as transfer of staff is not envisaged for this project 1 1 1 1. Trivial XX
of staff is incorrect
Fin 24 Increased estimates of NNDR 2 3 3 6. Moderate Cost of NNDR is specific to value of facility. Affordability modelling 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
includes an estimate of NNDR based on valuations of similar size
facilities. Information redacted relating to the financial or business
affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of
the Access to Information Procedure Rules.
Fin 25 Land acquisition costs are higher or lower 2 3 3 6. Moderate Land acquisition cost estimates used for Affordability modelling 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
than forecast purposes will be based on market rates. To be reassessed later
as site identification process progresses.
Fin 26 Potential for High Recycling Targets not 3 4 12. Major This risk has been considered in the OBC by modelling the cost of 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
being met by one or more Authorities. scenarios to the Partnership based on 2 different rates of recycling
and composting being achieved (58% and 50% recycling and
composting). The cost of both the Reference Project and Do
Minimum options has been modelled under each scenario. The
Procurement Strategy and subsequent Descriptive Document will
be developed to seek to mitigate and manage the potential
impacts of this risk on the Partnership.
207
Appendix 5a
Regulatory Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Risk Description Risk Mitigation Strategy Residual Risk Risk
Ref Owner
Reg 1 Waste responsibilities are re-aligned by WAG during 3 2 3 6. Conditions of contract will be worded to allow for 3 1 2 3. Low XX
contract period leading to changes in the client Moderate statutory changes in the client structure.
structure and requirements
Reg 2 Emerging WAG national waste strategy creates 5 4 7 20. Severe Close liaison with WAG throughout process. Ensure 4 3 5 12. Major XX
uncertainty over project scope working to current guidance and policy. Allow for
flexibility in contract structure & specification.
Information redacted relating to the financial or
business affairs of the partners, and others in
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information
Procedure Rules.
Reg 3 Policy and legislation change during procurement, 3 3 4 9. Close liaison with WAG throughout process. Ensure 2 2 2 4. Low XX
leading to a change in project requirements Significant working to current guidance and policy. Ensure have
due regard for the market position in SoPC4 and the
PUK sector specific guidance relating to change in
law.
Reg 4 Policy and legislation change during contract period, 5 3 6 15. High Close liaison with WAG throughout process. Ensure 4 2 4 8. XX
leading to a change in project requirements working to current guidance and policy. Ensure follow Significant
the market position in SoPC4 and the PUK sector
specific guidance relating to change in law.
Reg 5 Agreement is not reached on the overall waste strategy 3 4 5 12. Major Scope of project has been agreed that it will only deal 3 2 3 6. XX
and risk tolerance for each authority, causing delays in with 35% of MSW arisings. Each authority will Moderate
reaching agreement and procurement leading to develop its own mitigation strategy to deal with
uncertainty over project scope residual risk any additional residual waste. Continue
to hold regular meetings where risk will be reviewed.
To be managed through development of partnership
arrangements including decision making at an early
stage.
208
Appendix 5a
Procurement Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Risk Description Risk Mitigation Strategy Residual Risk
Ref Risk Owner
Proc 1 Delay in procurement programme means contract is 4 4 6 16. High Timetable will allow contingency for delays. All aspects of 3 3 4 9. Significant XX
late and services cannot be provided on time procurement process will be addressed to identify critical
path. Interim solutions will be considered as procurement
timetable is developed.
Proc 2 Lack of market interest reduces the number of viable 3 4 5 12. Major Prosiect Gwyrdd is a high profile project and will liaise 2 2 2 4. Low XX
bidders and reduces competition with the market at various points prior to procurement to
ensure the market is expecting and welcoming of the
tender. Also will review when other authorities in UK are
procuring to avoid flooding the market. Will develop
contract scope to ensure it is attractive to market by
identifying sites. To be managed through appropriate and
considered management of the Competitive Dialogue
process.
Proc 3 A current Private Sector proposal' adversely affects 3 3 4 9. Engage with market prior to procurement to ensure 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
viability of Prosiect Gwyrdd project, causing lack of Significant attractiveness. Identify sites for other bidders to use to
competition and uncertainty over sites / planning attract other tenderers.
Proc 4 The project has not allowed for sufficient resources 2 3 3 6. Budgets for procurement have been agreed and secured 2 2 2 4. Low XX
to deliver project according to the programme Moderate for procurement. Project team and steering group are
well-attended with representatives from each authority.
Review resourcing of work packages prior to
commissioning each.
Proc 5 Staff changes occur during the procurement 3 2 3 6. Team decisions and agreed process will be well- 3 2 3 6. Moderate XX
Moderate documented the process is to be managed through an e-
procurement system that has clear tracked decision
audits and document management system to ensure
consistency of approach and reliable recording of
decisions, with, ease of access to those decisions.
209
Appendix 5a
Proc 6 Bids with different technologies create difficulties in 3 2 3 6. Focus on the requirements / outputs of the Councils in 2 2 2 4. Low XX
tender evaluation Moderate detail (including detail such as waste flows from each
source). Ensure that what is being evaluated is how the
contractors propose to address the requirements through
their solutions to ensure that all are evaluated against a
base line position. Evaluation framework will be agreed at
outset and rigorously applied. External advisors will
provide professional judgement on evaluation of tenders
to ensure robustness.
Proc 7 Procurement process is challenged at any stage, 3 4 5 12. Major Robust procurement process will be agreed and 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
causing delay documented throughout. All key decisions will be signed
off. External advisors will provide professional advice
during procurement route. To be managed through
appropriate and considered management of the
Competitive Dialogue process, including appropriate use
of standstill period and debriefs for unsuccessful
candidates.
Proc 8 Ineffective use of Competitive Dialogue process - 3 4 5 12. Major Advice of external advisors will be sought on correct use 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
adversely affecting procurement timetable and of CD. Project team will seek examples of best practice
proposals from other local authorities where CD has been
successfully applied. Being specific about what elements
CD is required on. Will not unnecessarily protract process
or keep bidders in longer than required.
Proc 9 Structure of contractual agreement is not attractive 3 4 5 12. Major Documentation will be standardised and will follow market 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
to market, leading to lack of bidders and/or positions / remain within the perimeters generally
increased costs accepted by the market. Best practice and advice from
external advisors will be sought.
Proc 10 OBC is not delivered on time leading to delay in 4 4 6 16. High Programme for delivering OBC has been agreed and 2 2 2 4. Low XX
procurement programme each task and responsibility documented. Regular
meetings will help to ensure all issues are addressed in a
timely manner. Relevant senior officers are 'on-board'
with the process, resource requirements and timescales
for review / decision. It is recognised that further work will
be required after completion of OBC after Members
considerations.
Proc 11 Urgency to produce OBC leads to mistakes or 4 4 6 16. High Review stages have been allowed for in the programme 2 2 2 4. Low XX
oversights, creating uncertainty over robustness of for completing the OBC. Those people responsible for
OBC the review are already part of the process and delivery
team.
210
Appendix 5a
Proc 12 Information and data used to develop the project 5 4 7 20. Severe Reasonable assumptions will be agreed where accurate 1 3 2 3. Low XX
documentation is incomplete or inaccurate, causing data is not available and the sensitivities of these
uncertainty over project scope / requirements assumptions are tested to determine the impact on the
OBC. However, as the quality of information can have a
considerable impact on contractors, the Councils'
requirements including detail of waste flows, quality and
content of waste will be developed to the highest standard
for the Descriptive Document.
Proc 13 Authorities have different views on the selection 4 4 6 16. High Selection criteria will be developed and agreed prior to 2 2 2 4. Low XX
criteria for short listing tenderers, leading to delays procurement and applied throughout the procurement via
and indecision delegatied Authority to the Project Team. Criteria will be
selected only on the basis of their applicability to this
project.
Proc 14 Members are not sufficiently briefed to understand 4 3 5 12. Major Members workshops and briefings will be held prior to 3 2 3 6. Moderate XX
each stage and a proposed solution, leading to decision making, and throughout procurement process.
delays and indecision of the Joint Committee Site visits will be undertaken where appropriate.
Proc 15 OBC is not sufficiently robust to allow decision to 4 4 6 16. High Members will be consulted and briefed to determine their 2 2 2 4. Low XX
proceed to be made, thus delaying procurement expectations and the OBC work programme will be
programme tailored to suit. Additional information outside of the OBC
required to enable decision making, will be identified and
provided by each authority.
211
Appendix 5a
Design Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Risk Owner
Des 1 Failure of contractor to design to brief through 1 4 3 4. Competitive Dialogue will be used to ensure requirements of 1 2 1 2. XX
interpretation of Output Specification, leading to Moderate Partnership are met and understood. Partnership will review and Trivial
delays and additional costs approve designs. If failure occurs during procurement, during the
Competitive Dialogue process the Councils will have the
opportunity to set out their requirements in detail. If after
procurement, the "no service no fee" principle arises, together with
incentivisation through the payment mechanism. Information
redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners,
and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information
Procedure Rules.
Des 2 Construction Design timetable is not 3 4 5 12. Major Project programme will be developed to identify critical path. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
developed/adhered to Partnership will monitor this to ensure it is adhered to. Contractor
will be responsible for managing delays to process and will need to
provide contingency arrangements (facilities) in the event that
delays at design stage cause delays in facility operational date.
Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of
the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access
to Information Procedure Rules.
Des 3 Change in project content by the Partners 3 4 5 12. Major Scope is written, outputs detailed and change control mechanism 1 2 1 2. XX
leading to additional costs and delays in place, the Common Report will confirm project requirements. Trivial
Will be further investigated with bidders during Competitive
Dialogue to ensure that requirements are firm and deliverable by
the design stage.
Des 4 Change in design required by contractor 2 4 4 8. Contractor's requirements will be confirmed during Competitive 1 2 1 2. XX
incurring additional costs and delays Significant Dialogue to ensure that requirements are firm by the design stage. Trivial
The usual position is that the contract will be signed on the basis
that it is absolutely conditional on planning being granted thereafter
(the contract will include planning conditions and a planning long-
stop date / eventualities if planning is not obtained). The Councils
will need to ensure that the submissions from contractors include in
their price any reasonably expected conditions relating to planning
(for example, landscaping requirements).
212
Appendix 5a
Des 5 Legislative or regulatory changes during 2 3 3 6. The allocation of risk will follow SoPC4 and PUK guidance 1 3 2 3. Low XX
construction period require changes in design Moderate regarding change of law as appropriate.
213
Appendix 5a
Political Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Risk Owner
Pol 1 Differences in political views of the partners cause 4 4 6 16. High Initially the development of members' steering group. 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
delays in procurement programme leading to failure Regular members' and stakeholder briefing sessions.
to progress project partnership and it loses Take into account local factors in developing project.
credibility, resulting in lack of bidders and / or As procurement starts formal goverance working
support from WAG arrangements will be inplace to give a clear message
to stakeholders and particularly the market place.
The project will agree a communications strategy for
the engagement with all stakeholders. Project is
engaging with WAG throughout and advice is being
sought from WAG on the chosen approach. Best
practice is being followed throughout procurement.
WAG policy is being addressed in OBC.
Pol 4 Site locational issues results in failure to maintain 4 5 7 20. Severe Site identification process is in accordance with RWP 2 4 4 8. Significant XX
political support and LDP process for each authority. Process
followed will be robust and documented to support
evidence in event of challenge. Communications
strategy in place to brief members and other
stakeholders.
Pol 5 Prosiect Gwyrdd partners change during 4 4 6 16. High Views of all partners are being taken into account. 3 2 3 6. Moderate XX
procurement, creating uncertainty over project Regular team and member steering group meetings
requirements to address concerns and issues. Partnership
Governance is being addressed at early stage.
Definitive 'cut off' date will be agreed after which
partnership structure cannot change. OJEU notice
will be worded to allow some flexibility.
Pol 6 Political acceptance of project cannot be secured, 3 5 6 15. High Development of members' Joint Committee. Regular 2 5 5 10. Major XX
leading to delays in procurement programme members' briefing sessions. Take into account local
factors in developing project. Members have already
approved concept of procurement process. Project
initiation document will provide full details of project.
214
Appendix 5a
Pol 7 Political change during procurement leading to 4 3 5 12. Major Project programme is being developed to take into 2 2 2 4. Low XX
delays or indecision in the procurement programme account political change. Project will aim to secure
political support through liaison and briefings with
members. Most political party views already reflected
within group, and agreed to process to date. Not a
political issue, but member-specific issue.
Pol 8 Procurement Governance arrangements between 4 4 6 16. High This is being addressed at Project Initiation stage to 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
authorities cannot be agreed, causing delays and mitigate impact on procurement. MoU has been
uncertainty in project structure agreed. Political endorsement for joint committee
required. Detailed partnership / governance
arrangements to be agreed prior to procurement
commencing. Councils to identify project specific
issues in order to address these appropriately and
early on to prevent unnecessary delay.
Pol 9 Local government re-organisation occurs, creating 3 3 4 9. The conditions of contract will be worded to allow an 3 1 2 3. Low XX
uncertainty in client structure Significant effective change in client structure with minimal
impact on the services being provided.
Pol 10 Decision-making timetables for each authority are 5 4 7 20. Severe Project programme will be developed to address 3 2 3 6. Moderate XX
different, leading to delays different timetables - working with the 'worst case'
scenario for decision-making. When joint committee
developed will have delegated powers to progress.
Backstop date is important - recognise that need to
agree by a certain time.
Pol 11 Public accountability is challenged according to the 3 3 4 9. Robust and documented process is being followed. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
process followed Significant Best practice is being adhered to.
Pol 12 Members not being sufficiently informed of progress 3 4 5 12. Major Development of members' steering group. Regular 2 3 3 6. Moderate XX
and issues, causing delays and indecision members' briefing sessions. Take into account local
factors in developing project. Project Team and
Governance in place and Member Joint Committee
governance proposed.
Pol 13 High profile action group campaigns affect level of 4 4 6 16. High Communications strategy will be agreed to engage 3 3 4 9. Significant XX
political support with stakeholders and public to inform them of the
reasons for the project and to keep them up to date
with progress. Joint Committee to buy in/agree to
stakeholder commercial strategy.
215
Appendix 5a
Pol 14 Councils fail to make/delay unaminious decision on 4 4 6 16. High Project programme will be developed to address 2 2 2 4. Low XX
preferred bidder different timetables - working with the 'worst case'
scenario for timing decision-making. Due regard will
be paid to Council wide briefing and updates,
throughout the process Scrutiny committees and
other political key stakeholders will be kept engaged.
Joint Committee Members will keep Cabinets/
Executives informed whilst retaining the delegated
powers to progress to preferred bidder.
Pol 15 Lack of commitment from senior management and 3 3 4 9. Ensure appropriate representation of senior 1 2 1 2. Trivial XX
all authorities adversely affecting project timescales Significant management on Project Team and Project Board.
and commitment to the project Ensure all are given opportunity to air views and local
factors are taken into account. Senior management of
each Council will be made aware of the urgency of
this project in terms of cost, legislation and reputation
by the Project Executives and SRO of the Project
Board.
216
Appendix 5a
Planning Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Owner
Plan 1 No suitable sites can be identified either by the 3 5 6 15. High Site identification process follows RWP and LDP 2 5 5 10. Major XX
partnership or the potential market bidders criteria. Any sites put forward will be assessed in
accordance with a Council's relevant LDP. A site
has already been identified by the market, and
there are other potential sites listed in SEW
RWP, investigations for the partnership are
ongoing, further market interest is known,
likelihood is reduced.
Plan 2 Judicial review or public inquiry is incurred around site 5 4 7 20. Severe Robust process will be followed in accordance 2 3 3 6. XX
issues - causes delay and increased costs with agreed procedures for site identification and Moderate
planning, including the use of appropriate
criteria. LDP process includes public
consultation.
Plan 3 RWP consultation/ ratification creates uncertainty over 3 3 4 9. RWP Consultation was completed April 2008. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
site identification process Significant Ratification by all South Eat Regional Authorities
is expected by October 2008. Site identification
process will be completed by time of
approaching the market.
Plan 4 Planning permission requires changes in design or 4 4 6 16. High Procurement and facility delivery programme will 3 3 4 9. XX
landscaping or other conditions- incurring additional be developed to take into account possible Significant
costs and delay delays in the timescales. The critical path will be
identified and interim / contingency
arrangements will be sought. Planning view will
be sought at early stage. The Councils are to
ensure that the submissions from contractors
include in their price any reasonably expected
conditions relating to planning (for example,
landscaping requirements) to ensure planning
costs are controlled.
217
Appendix 5a
Plan 5 Failure to secure suitable land - either to offer to 3 4 5 12. Major Site identification process will follow RWP and 2 4 4 8. XX
bidders or for contractors to secure themselves LDP. Any new sites put forward will be assessed Significant
in accordance with relevant LDP. Site ownership
and value will be addressed during site
identification process. CPO will be initiated if
necessary as a last resort. Ensure the
evaluation is of the solution and not the
availability of the site to ensure solutions are
evaluated against a base line position.
Plan 6 Failure to obtain planning permission 3 5 6 15. High Site identification process will follow RWP and 2 5 5 10. Major XX
LDP. Early planning view will be sought.
Communication strategy will be in place to
Plan 7 Timescales for development of LDPs do not align 3 3 4 9. Each authority has UDPs which will stand until 2 3 3 6. XX
between authorities which creates uncertainty over Significant LDPs developed. Site identification process will Moderate
site identification follow RWP. Each LDP process will
subsequently follow RWP guidelines.
Timescales for each LDP are different, but this
can be mitigated by early consultation with
planning departments to determine selection
criteria. Could develop supplementary planning
guidance. Each authority will work with planners
to develop approaches.
Plan 8 Timescales for LDPs do not align with procurement 5 3 6 15. High Timescales for each LDP are different, but this 3 3 4 9. XX
process creating uncertainty over site identification can be mitigated by early consultation with Significant
and delays in planning planning departments to determine selection
criteria to move process forward in line with
general principles.
Plan 9 Planning permission is delayed / protracted 4 4 6 16. High Site identification process will follow RWP and 2 3 3 6. XX
LDP. Early planning view will be sought. Interim Moderate
or contingency arrangements will be identified.
Communication strategy will be put in place to
Plan 10 Full EIA is required, causing delays and additional 5 4 7 20. Severe Full EIA will be required and this will be taken 4 2 4 8. XX
expense into account in timescales. EIA investigations Significant
will be progressed as far as possible during
procurement.
Plan 11 More than one site is required, creating additional 2 4 4 8. All site issues will follow formal process in line 2 3 3 6. XX
ownership & planning obstacles Significant with development plans to aid the process. Moderate
218
Appendix 5a
Plan 12 Differing planning criteria between authorities causes 2 3 3 6. Planning process will be in accordance with 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX
uncertainty and delay in assessment of proposals Moderate RWP. Criteria for site identification will follow
the relevant LDP. Planning criteria will be
applied by LA with site (s) in its area.
Plan 13 CPO is required for site (s), causing delay and 3 5 6 15. High During site identification process, site ownership 2 5 5 10. Major XX
additional expense will be addressed and flagged up accordingly
and consolidated into timescale.
Plan 15 Ecological and/or archaeological issues arise during 3 4 5 12. Major Site investigations to be addressed at early 3 2 3 6. XX
planning and EIA process, causing delays and stage and funded by Partnership. Results will be Moderate
additional cost shared with bidders during procurement.
Plan 16 Failure by contractor to comply with conditions of 2 3 3 6. Contractor will be selected on track record. 1 3 2 3. Low XX
planning consents, causing additional costs and Moderate Contractual requirement to comply with planning
delays to rectify consents. Partnership will monitor contractor
performance.
Plan 17 Planning application is called in for WAG to determine, 3 4 5 12. Major Communication strategy will be put in place to 2 4 4 8. XX
causing delays ensure all stakeholders and the public are Significant
informed of the project to help mitigate problems
during planning process.
Plan 18 CHP operating with a potential EfW is prescribed as 4 3 12.Major Has potential effect on Project Scope and Site's 4 2 4 8. XX
necessay to meet with Targets and WAG funding identified. Project scope does not preclude non Significant
conditions efw technology, this would need to be described
prior to procurement, close liaison with WAG
and it's advisors are ongoing. Competitive
Dialogue process will consider solution options.
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to
Information Procedure Rules.
219
Appendix 5a
Construction and Commissioning
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Owner
Con 1 Problems occur during commissioning phase which 5 3 6 15. High Pre-agreed acceptance tests for commissioning. 2 3 3 6. XX
delay the date by which the facility is fully Contract waste will be used for commissioning to Moderate
operational, or causes additional costs to rectify enable performance to be judged accordingly.
problems Adequate time for commissioning will be factored
into the project programme in the event of any
delays. Only proven technology will be selected for
this project. Information redacted relating to the
financial or business affairs of the partners, and
others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to
Con 2 Contractor fails to construct fit for purpose facility 3 5 6 15. High An independent certifier will need to certify the 2 3 3 6. XX
that meets project outputs facility before payment flows, following which the Moderate
payment mechanism will incentivise availability /
service provision.
Con 3 Delays in construction programme 4 4 6 16. High Procurement and facility delivery programme will be 3 3 4 9. XX
developed to take into account possible delays in Significant
the timescales. Contract drafting will adhere to
SoPC4 and PUK sector specific guidance regarding
delay as appropriate.
Con 4 Unforeseen ground investigations are required 3 4 5 12. Major Procurement and facility delivery programme will be 3 3 4 9. XX
developed to take into account possible delays in Significant
the timescales. The critical path will be identified
and interim / contingency arrangements will be
sought. Information redacted relating to the financial
or business affairs of the partners, and others in
220
Appendix 5a
Con 5 No contractors are available to build facility post 3 5 6 15. High Contingency facility arrangements will be a 2 5 5 10. Major XX
procurement contractual requirement to allow Contract waste to
be treated in accordance with the specification - the
principle of "no service, no fee" applies. Market will
be tested prior to procurement. Partnership
approach makes project more viable and more
attractive to construction market by offering
economies of scale.
Con 6 Theft/damage to equipment or materials - use of 3 4 5 12. Major Contractor will be responsible for ensuring such 2 2 2 4. Low XX
sub-standard materials and/or theft and/or damage problems do not occur through secure storage on
to equipment and materials may lead to unforeseen site and procurement of quality materials. Contract
costs in terms of replacing damaged items, and will include e.g. insurance requirements on
delay contractor and impact on service to be addressed
through SoPC4/ /PUK guidance. Payment
mechanism to address failures by the contractor
affecting delivery of the service.
Con 7 Site safety is not addressed & maintained, causing 3 4 5 12. Major Operation under the Construction, Design & 1 4 3 4. XX
claims, delays and HSE notifications Management (CDM) regulations will be a Moderate
requirement of the contract to reflect standard
drafting. SoPC4/ PUK guidance and market
accepted drafting to be included in the contract in
relation to safety requirements.
Con 8 Compensation events impede performance of #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
contract construction phase causing additional appropriate in relation to compensation events,
expense SEE NOTE BELOW providing compensation for the contractor where
appropriate.
Con 9 Relief events impede performance of contract #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
construction phase causing additional expense SEE appropriate in relation to relief events, providing
NOTE BELOW relief where appropriate.
Con 10 Force Majeure causing delays to project plan & #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
increased costs SEE NOTE BELOW appropriate in relation to force majeure (shared risk
basis).
Con 12 Main contractor default & subsequent replacement #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
required SEE NOTE appropriate in relation to termination as a result of
BELOW contractor default and retendering process.
Con 13 Poor project management by contractor leads to 3 4 5 12. Major Principle of "no service, no fee" to be followed. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
additional costs and/or delay. Facility to be certified as complete by independent
certifier.
221
Appendix 5a
Con 14 Contractor/sub-contractor industrial action results in 2 4 4 8. Information redacted relating to the financial or 1 2 1 2. Trivial XX
delays and additional costs Significant business affairs of the partners, and others in
Information Procedure Rules. Effect on service to
be addressed through the payment mechanism.
SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as
appropriate.
Con 15 High profile action groups affect construction at the 3 4 5 12. Major SoPC4 / PUK guidance on waste sector to be 2 4 4 8. XX
facility leading to delays and additional costs followed in relation to such action as appropriate. Significant
Con 16 Adverse weather prevents construction programme 3 4 5 12. Major SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed in relation to 2 4 4 8. XX
progressing to schedule, causing delays and contractor risk / specific relief events available in Significant
additional cost certain serious circumstances (e.g. flood).
Con 17 Legislative or regulatory changes during 2 3 3 6. SoPC4/ PUK guidance to be followed as 1 3 2 3. Low XX
construction period require changes in design Moderate appropriate regarding change in law drafting in the
contract.
Con 18 Failure of specialist sub-contractor during 3 4 5 12. Major Information redacted relating to the financial or 3 3 4 9. XX
construction stage business affairs of the partners, and others in Significant
Information Procedure Rules. SoPC4 / PUK
guidance /market position to be followed as
appropriate in relation to replacement of non-
performing sub-contractors
Note: Con 6 to Con 18 are all issues dealt with

under the contract based on SoPC4 / PUK. The
risk in each case will be agreed by the
contractors prior to the appointment of
preferred bidder as embedded in the contract.
This will be reflected in the document as the
procurement moves forward.
222
Appendix 5a
Operational Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Owner
Op 1 Secure end markets are not available for process outputs 4 4 6 16. High Will be evaluation criteria for tenders. Requirement 3 2 3 6. XX
for tenderers to assume responsibility for finding Moderate
markets for treatment outputs. Affect on BMW
diversion will be assessed - target BMW diversion
performance will be contract requirement.
Op 2 Facility does not perform as expected with regards to 3 4 5 12. Major Only proven technologies will be considered for 2 3 3 6. XX
BMW landfill diversion contract. BMW diversion is less of an issue if Moderate
authorities meet high recycling and composting
rates. BMW diversion and track record will be
tender evaluation criteria. BMW diversion
performance will be a contract requirement
Op 3 Facility does not perform as expected with regards to 3 4 5 12. Major Information redacted relating to the financial or 2 2 2 4. Low XX
facility availability due to operational or maintenance business affairs of the partners, and others in
problems accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to
Information Procedure Rules. Failure to deliver the
service / inadequate maintenance / lifecycle will
result in operation of the payment mechanism.
Op 4 Partnership changes its requirements / scope post- 3 3 4 9. SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as 2 3 3 6. XX
procurement during operational stage Significant appropriate in relation to changes in services Moderate
during the contract period. Councils to agree what
is required prior to contract signature due to
potential for variations to be expensive.
Op 5 Insufficient landfill capacity available to meet requirements 4 5 7 20. Severe Treatment process is intended to reduce landfill 3 4 5 12. Major XX
for process rejects during contract period requirement. Landfill requirements for process
outputs currently considered will be responsibility
of contractor.
Op 6 Associated infrastructure required to deliver contract is not 3 4 5 12. Major This will be the responsibility of each authority to 3 4 5 12. Major XX
available - e.g. waste transfer stations mitigate, and lies outside the contract. Each
partner will assess its own infrastructure
arrangements.
223
Appendix 5a
Op 7 Interface between the collection activities of the five local 3 3 4 9. Requirements /solution will need to allow for 2 3 3 6. XX
authorities impacts on the contract operation Significant different collection methods. Each authority will Moderate
have a requirement to manage its collection with
the residual waste treatment project in mind. A
tolerance of tonnage and composition will be
agreed during procurement. manage through
appropriate / ongoing partnership arrangements in
place during the life of the contract.
Op 8 Failure of specialist sub-contractor during operational 3 4 5 12. Major Information redacted relating to the financial or 3 3 4 9. XX
stage, e.g. maintenance, software provision, transport business affairs of the partners, and others in Significant
Information Procedure Rules. Operation of
payment mechanism and follow SoPC4 / PUK
guidance and market position regarding
replacement of non-performing sub-contractors.
Op 9 Capacity required has been under-estimated, requiring the 4 4 6 16. High Review of project assumptions at each stage 3 2 3 6. XX
Partners to manage more residual waste outside the during procurement. Information redacted relating Moderate
contract to the financial or business affairs of the partners,
and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the
Access to Information Procedure Rules.
Op 10 Capacity required has been over-estimated, creating 2 2 2 4. Low Review of project assumptions at each stage 1 1 1 1. Trivial XX
surplus capacity within the facility during procurement. Excess capacity can be
managed through acceptance of third party waste.
Ensure no potential for state aid issues arising by
taking appropriate legal advice.
Op 11 Traffic flows on surrounding areas are adversely affected, 4 3 5 12. Major Will initially be addressed and managed through 3 1 2 3. Low XX
leading to complaints from the public and/or adverse EIA and planning application process.
impacts on delivery vehicles Consideration of use of alternative transport, e.g.
rail.
Op 12 Adverse press / publicity during operation 3 2 3 6. Continue to engage with stakeholders and public. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
Moderate Requirement for contractor to provide information
to support awareness / PR campaigns. Timely
response to complaints.
Op 13 Changes in waste composition affecting the efficient 4 3 5 12. Major Technology will be selected on basis of flexibility 4 2 4 8. XX
operation of the facility and track record. Contract will be structured to Significant
facilitate change - managed through contractual
procedure. SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed
in relation to change procedure but consider
considerable effect change could have / cost
associated with such change.
224
Appendix 5a
Op 14 Contractor does not perform as required 3 4 5 12. Major Managed through payment mechanism and 3 2 3 6. XX
performance framework to ensure contractor is Moderate
incentivised to perform. SoPC4 / PUK guidance /
market positions as appropriate to be followed in
relation to step-in right of the authority / any
funder, contractor default and non-performing sub-
contractors.
Op 15 Contractor breaches legislation 3 4 5 12. Major SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as 2 3 3 6. XX

appropriate in relation to such breach. Moderate
Op 16 Complete and catastrophic failure of facility (e.g. fire) 2 5 5 10. Major SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as 2 3 3 6. XX
appropriate in relation to insurance requirements Moderate
placed upon the contractor, site security and relief
events where appropriate (relief from termination).
Op 17 Industrial action on the part of the contractor's staff 2 4 4 8. Information redacted relating to the financial or 2 3 3 6. XX
Significant business affairs of the partners, and others in Moderate
Information Procedure Rules. Effect on service to
be addressed through the payment mechanism.
SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as
appropriate.
Op 18 Expense of de-commissioning and disposal of surplus 2 3 3 6. Partnership will set out position in partnering 1 2 1 2. Trivial XX
operational plant & equipment at start and end of contract Moderate arrangements and decision making to deal with
whether it will maintain control of facility at the end
of contract and how this will be managed.
Equipment at start of contract is not an issue as no
assets (other than perhaps land) will be transferred
through contract.
Op 19 Latent defects in existing build/equipment to be transferred 1 1 1 1. Trivial SoPC4 / PUK guidance and market positions to be 1 1 1 1. Trivial XX
to incoming contractor, which require repair followed as appropriate in relation to latent defects.
Op 20 Latent defects in structure of new build assets which 2 4 4 8. Contract structure will be developed to ensure 2 2 2 4. Low XX
require repair Significant construction contractor is responsible for repair.
225
Appendix 5a
Op 21 Termination due to default by the Partnership authorities 2 4 4 8. SoPC4 PUK guidance to be followed in respect of 1 3 2 3. Low XX
and compensation is payable to contractor Significant compensation on termination for Authority default.
Op 22 Incorrect estimated costs of maintenance & operation 3 4 5 12. Major Careful review of tender assumptions and prices. 2 2 2 4. Low XX
If bank-funded, bank TA will pay a lot of attention
to this. To be managed through payment
mechanism, Information redacted relating to the
Op 23 Change in SPV structure impacting on delivery of contract 2 3 3 6. SoPC4 to be followed in relation to change in 2 1 1 2. Trivial XX
Moderate control of SPV.
Op 24 Changes in technology resulting in asset obsolescence - 1 4 3 4. Proven technology will be used. Contractor will be 1 2 1 2. Trivial XX
buildings, plant, equipment Moderate responsible for ensuring spares and replacements
are available. Information redacted relating to the
Information Procedure Rules. Very unlikely that
whole facility will become obsolete.
Op 25 Compensation events SEE NOTE BELOW #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
appropriate in relation to compensation events (not
generally available during operational period).
Op 26 Relief events - causing delays and impeding performance #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
of the contract and causing additional expense SEE NOTE appropriate in relation to relief events, providing
BELOW relief where appropriate.
Op 27 Termination of contract due to Force Majeure if contractor #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
is no longer able to perform the contract SEE NOTE appropriate in relation to force majeure (shared
BELOW risk basis).
Op 28 Main contractor default & subsequent replacement #N/A #N/A SoPC4 / PUK guidance to be followed as #N/A #N/A XX
required SEE NOTE BELOW appropriate in relation to termination as a result of
contractor default and retendering process.
Op 29 Council collection staff industrial action so waste is not 2 4 4 8. Information redacted relating to the financial or 2 3 3 6. XX
sent to plant Significant business affairs of the partners, and others in Moderate
Information Procedure Rules. Third party waste
will be sourced to allow facility to operate.
226
Appendix 5a
Note: OP4, OP5, OP8 and OP13- OP28 are all issues
dealt with under the contract based on SoPC4 / PUK.
The risk in each case will be agreed by the contractors
prior to the appointment of preferred bidder as
embedded in the contract. This will be reflected in the
227
Appendix 5a
Environmental Aspects
Likelihood
Likelihood
Impact
Impact
Ref Owner
Env 1 Facility fails to get PPC permit meaning that it 2 5 5 10. Major Only proven technology with track record will 2 2 2 4. Low XX
cannot operate be selected. Contingency facility arrangements
will Information redacted relating to the
financial or business affairs of the partners,
and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the
Access to Information Procedure Rules. allow
Contract waste to be treated in accordance
with the specification - the principle of "no
service, no fee" applies
Env 2 Delays in obtaining PPC permit causing 3 3 4 9. Only proven technology with track record will 2 2 2 4. Low XX
delays in operational date Significant be selected. Contingency facility
arrangements will Information redacted relating
to the financial or business affairs of the
partners, and others in accordance with Rule
10 of the Access to Information Procedure
Rules. allow Contract waste to be treated in
accordance with the specification - the
principle of "no service, no fee" applies
Env 3 Environmental liability at the end of the 4 3 5 12. Major Will be managed through PPC and contractual 3 1 2 3. Low XX
contract life results in additional remediation arrangements for end of life.
costs
Env 4 Adverse perception of actual emissions from 4 4 6 16. High Continue to engage with stakeholders and 3 2 3 6. XX
the facilities public. Requirement for contractor to provide Moderate
information to support awareness / PR
campaigns. Timely response to complaints.
Env 5 Failure of contractor to maintain licences and 2 5 5 10. Major Contractual requirement for operator to 1 3 2 3. Low XX
consents maintain all licences and consents. SoPC4 /
PUK guidance and market position as
appropriate to be followed regarding
requirements for / breach of requirements
relating to consents.
228
Appendix 5a
Note: Env 5 is an issue dealt with under the
contract based on SoPC4 / PUK. The risk in
each case will be agreed by the
contractors prior to the appointment of
preferred bidder as embedded in the
contract. This will be reflected in the
document as the procurement moves
forward.
229
Appendix 5b
Appendix 5b: Contract and Funding Options

Introduction
This Appendix sets out how the Partnership has arrived at its preferred choice of contract and funding
option for the project.
The Partnership followed the following steps to arrive at its preferred contract and funding options:
Step 1: Assessed the types of funding options available to residual waste treatment contracts
and how these match up with different contract options - the Partnership's financial advisor Grant
Thornton prepared a paper that was shared with the Project Team, Finance Sub Group and
Steering Group. The paper was then discussed at the Finance Sub Group meeting on the 5th of
December 2007 where the potential use of Prudential Borrowing was debated.
Step 2: A Risk Workshop held on the 9th of January 2008 identified the key risks which could
either have a large impact on the costs of the Reference Project and/or be difficult to manage. The
evaluation was completed in light of the technologies short listed for the project.
Step 3: Assessed the types of contract options that are available to the project and how key risk
allocation works under different contract options - the Partnership's legal advisor Pinsent Mason
prepared a paper and presented the paper to the Steering Group on the 9th of January 2008 as
part of the Risk Workshop.
Step 4: A further, more detailed Risk Workshop was held on 16th of January 2008 focusing on
the technical risks presented by the technical options. The workshop focused in particular on the
interfaces of technical risks between the Design and Construction phase and the Operate and
Maintain phase of a project. The workshop was run with the support of a paper provided by the
Partnership's technical advisor Parsons Brinkerhoff, highlighting some of the key risks that can
occur during the operation and maintenance of Energy from Waste facilities. The workshop also
investigated the requirements of an input based contract in light of the technical issues presented
by the technologies with a view to determining if the Partnership wanted to proceed with an input or
output based contract.
Step 5: at a Steering Group meeting on the 23rd of January 2008 the project's Steering Group
ratified the decision to proceed with a Design Build Finance Operate and Maintain ("DBFOM")
contract type as its choice of funding and contract type for the project but with a view to exploring
with the market the potential value for money benefits of utilizing prudential borrowing. This
decision was also supported by the project's Finance Sub Group.
The following sections of this report set out the analysis the Partnership undertook to arrive at its choice
of contract and funding option for the project.
Contracting Options
The following analysis considers the principal types of contract that are available for procuring waste
treatment facilities or the services provided by such facilities.
Principal Contracting Options
Table 1 below outlines some the principal contracting options available to the Partnership. Which option
best suits a particular procurement exercise will depend on several factors, including:
The number, type and size of facilities that are likely to be required to meet the Partnership's
waste treatment objectives;
230
Appendix 5b
Existing waste management capacity and infrastructure and its ownership;
The extent to which the Council is in a position to identify in advance specific technologies
that are suitable (would be required for input specification type contracts for the Design and
Build of facilities);
The access to either capital and / or revenue funding - the nature of the contract type driving
the funding solution and how the contract is paid for;
The risk matrices associated with the various contracts; and
The specified contractual requirements.
Table 1: Principal Contracting Options

Contracting
Type of Contract Notes
Options
1 Service Services procured in this way typically make use of existing
Contract/Agreements waste management infrastructure (such as a merchant
plant) to provide a service for which the procuring Authority
(ies) (e.g. the Partnership) will pay a monthly sum or a gate
fee per tonne. The procuring Authority needs to set out in
detail the specification for service to be delivered by the
contractor.
As a viable contracting option it either requires the waste

management infrastructure that is necessary to meet the
procuring Authority's objectives to already be available
within the region or for a contractor to deliver new capital
facilities at risk. The challenge is to encourage the delivery
of new facilities if there are few existing ones in place and
maintain effective competition between these different
delivery models, as the development of new facilities
involves a greater risks and greater potential obstacles.
2 Design and Build Using a single contractor to act as the sole point of
responsibility to a public sector client for the design,
management and delivery of a construction project on time,
within budget (taking account of whole-life costs) and in
accordance with a pre-defined specification for the design
and build of the facility using reasonable skill and care.
Under this contract option, the Partnership would be

required to provide a set of detailed technical requirements
of the facility and would contract directly with a construction
company / contractor for the delivery of the works. The
Partnership would then operate the facility itself or source a
separate contract for the operation and maintenance of the
facility.
The Partnership would need to finance the capital project

from internal budgets (capital and / or revenue) or through
prudential borrowing or any grants received. Any Prudential
Borrowing can be in the form of a loan from the Public
Works Loan Board, a commercial bank loan or a lease.
Key issues to consider with this choice of contract type are:
231
Appendix 5b
(1) The Partnership needs to have chosen a specific

technology to procure in order to be able to set out the
detailed technical requirements of the facility; and
(2) Depending on the payment terms of the contract and
therefore the timing of when any funding was injected into
the project, the Partnership would take the contractual risks
associated with funding the project.
3 Design Build Finance, This is the usual basis on which PPP contracts are
Operate and Maintain delivered.
(DBFOM)
Under the DBFOM option, the contractor is required by the
Partnership to finance the capital investment required to
facilitate all works needed to deliver the services. The
contractor can raise the required funding through its own
balance sheet or through raising project finance and
appropriate bank loans. The Partnership will set out outline
service specifications and the contractor (traditionally a
waste management contractor, or more recently major
building contractors and supply chain managers) will design
build and finance the facilities required to deliver the service
requirement.
The contractor will then operate the facilities and provide the
relevant services to the Authority, for which the Partnership
will pay a monthly sum or gate fee. Due to the period
required for the payback of capital investment, DBFOM
contracts may typically have periods of between 20 and 30
years.
These type of contracts remove the need for the Partnership

to source capital funding. They are however relatively
inflexible in that they do not deal well with some of the key
issues that waste contracts face:
Change in Law;
Deferred Capital Expenditure;
Developments in technology; and
Developments of markets for treated waste products.
DEFRA has been working with the waste industry to

address these areas and issued guidance on dealing with a
number of these specific issues in May 2006.
4
Other PPP/ Joint There are other forms of PPP arrangements which are
Venture Arrangements variations on the DBFOM model and whose different
contractual / risk arrangements would allow the Partnership
to use its own capital funds, in part or full, and either from
the outset of the contract or to allow the private sector
funder to recycle its initial investment. Types of structure
include:
Separate Design; Build; Operate; and Finance: The

waste Partnership contracts separately for the works and
services needed, and provides funding by raising capital for
each of the main contracts. The contract to build the facility
would be based on the Partnership's design and
specification and the Partnership would own the facility once
232
Appendix 5b
constructed. CLG guidance states that traditional contract

strategies, where the design and construction are provided
separately, should only be used where it can be clearly
demonstrated that this approach will provide better value for
money than the preferred integrated procurement routes
highlighted above. A possible driver for following this
traditional procurement route is because of the desire to
submit an early planning application. The Partnership's legal
advisors Pinsent Mason's paper presented to the Steering
Group on the 9th of January 2008 as part of the Risk
Workshop sets out why in Pinsent Mason's opinion there is
far less risk to the Partnership if a planning application is
submitted when it has the inputs required by its preferred
contractor.
Design & Build; Operate; Finance: A contract is let for the

private sector contractor to provide both the design and
construction of a facility to specified performance
requirements. The Partnership owns the facility that is
constructed and makes separate arrangements to raise
capital. The Operation and maintenance of the facility would
be arranged through a separate Operation and Maintenance
contract.
Design, Build and Operate and Maintain; Finance: The

Design and Build and Operation and Maintenance contracts
are combined. The Partnership owns the facility once
constructed and makes separate arrangements to raise
capital.
5 Partnering This option involves the selection of a contractor who will be

required to deliver service requirements that are likely to
change and evolve with time. The Partnership, in selecting
such an approach, primarily seeks to identify the contractor
who it considers it can work with most effectively to deliver
such changes without re-sought to further procurement.
Such contracts are often based on DBFOM type contract
documentation, augmented by appropriate controls over
contract variations to ensure value for money is maintained
(e.g. open book accounting, agreed profit levels, service
benchmarking etc.)
Funding Options
The following analysis considers the principal types of funding that could be used to fund the type of
residual waste treatment facility envisaged by the project.
Prudential Borrowing
What is Prudential Borrowing?
The Prudential Framework in Wales applies to Welsh county and county borough councils, police
authorities, fire authorities and national parks and is the administrative framework which allows them to
borrow in accordance with the Code. The objective of the Code is to help ensure for individual
Authorities that:
233
Appendix 5b
Capital expenditure plans are affordable;
All external borrowing and other long term liabilities are within prudent and sustainable
levels; and
Treasury management decisions are taken in accordance with professional good practice.
Such borrowings are usually in the form of a loan from the Public Works Loan Board (“PWLB”), at rates
of interest marginally above those at which the Government itself can borrow from the gilts market;
although other forms of borrowing, including commercial bank loans and bond issues, are permitted.
Prudential Borrowing is sometimes referred to as an alternative method of procurement to PPP. This is

misleading, as Prudential Borrowing is simply a source of finance – not a procurement route in itself. In
fact, Prudential Borrowings can be used in conjunction with conventional or PPP based procurements.
Prudential Borrowing will be particularly attractive for some smaller scale contracts, and provides an
option for Local Authorities to act as the sponsor and owner to a project, and tender simply for a turnkey
construction contract and then for an operator. The principle options for use of prudential borrowing
under the different types of contract structure are as follows.
Table 2: Possible Prudential Borrowing usage

Contract Type Possible Prudential Borrowing usage
Service Contract n/a
D&B contract + Provide capital funding for costs ancillary to the main infrastructure
separate O &M delivery (e.g. site assembly and remediation/ preparation); and
contract
To provide capital funding (in the form of milestone payments) for
the construction of the principal processing facility.
PPP "DBFOM" To pay for site assembly costs - ideally to be done outside of the
contract PPP contract;
To make capital contributions towards designated assets/costs
and / or acting solely or alongside a commercial funder to provide
the debt finance for the construction phase of the project (see
section on 'Issues with providing capital financing to PPP
projects'). This is heavily discouraged by UK Central
Government on DBFOM projects because of their impact on
value for money; and
To re-finance the contractors senior debt borrowings once the
facility passes its acceptance testing and is deemed "fit for
purposes" (with the contractor retaining an equity investment in
the project).
Strategic Partnering / Any combination of the above depending on how individual

Joint Venture contracts / procurements were undertaken within the strategic
Arrangements partnering framework.
Defra guidance on the use of prudential borrowing in the waste sector

Defra are currently consulting on their guidance around the use of prudential borrowing on DBFOM waste
projects. The overriding theme of the paper is that prudential borrowing should be primarily focused on
the delivery of low capex / low risk procurements, and not integrated into PPP style contract structures.
234
Appendix 5b
Current waste procurements where prudential borrowing is being used

Grant Thornton understands that ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||| and |||||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||| are currently looking to procure waste treatment infrastructure and are
exploring the use of prudential borrowing to fund these projects. Details of the contract and funding
structures of these projects are thought to be:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| - Design, Build Operate and Maintain contract for a residual waste treatment facility -
exploring both the option of the private sector contractor funding the project vs. the Authority itself funding
the project
||||||||||||||||||| - procurement of infrastructure through a joint venture company
||||||||| ||||||||||||| - procurement of residual waste treatment infrastructure exploring both the use of either
Prudential Borrowing or Public Private Partnership funding. The Authority is working with the two
remaining bidders on developing a solution where the Authority uses Prudential Borrowing to pay for
capital expenditure, although Grant Thornton understands that the Authority is looking to make such
payments once the contractor has been able to demonstrate that the equipment is "fit for purpose" i.e.
once the design and build of the assets is complete, which means that the Contractor has to fund the
capital expenditure until this point in time.
235
Appendix 5b
Issues with providing Council Capital Financing to PPP/PFI delivered projects

As stated, the Project Gwyrdd Partners (the "Councils") have two main alternatives, which are
(1) To make capital contributions to the scheme or
(2) act as a lender to the project with the expectation that the Contractor would repay the Councils'
financing costs.
Advantages:
Although still to be tested through modeling, it is almost certain that the costs of financing through
prudential borrowing will be cheaper than commercial funding.
Disadvantages
The PPP structure has been primarily developed around a DBFOM (Design, Build, Finance, Operate and
Maintain) structure with the risks that are transferred to the private sector partner interlinked around these
combined activities. For example, a key principle is that the Councils do not pay anything until the facility
has been delivered, and then pay a combined unitary charge which covers the costs of the financing of
the construction and the on-going operation. Paying lump sums to cover construction payments goes
against this principle. Standard contract positions (reflected in HM Treasury's Standardisation of PFI
Contracts -SoPC- guidance) would have to be significantly modified and re-negotiated (e.g. in respect of
implications of construction delay, levels of sub-contract security, financial consequences of early
termination of the contract).
Arising from the above, the Councils will need to demonstrate that they are getting value for the payments
they are making, i.e. there is a tangible asset which has value to the Councils for the capital payment
made. Given that the early costs of delivering the facility are focused on payment for fees, design, and
works preparation / mobilization, the Councils will be pushed towards making payments towards the end
of construction or when the facility is delivered. Although prudential borrowing will provide cheaper overall
funding, the later in the construction programme that the Councils provide any funds the more the benefit
diminishes as in the meantime the Contractor will have had to source other finance (e.g. working capital
facility) to meet costs as incurred.
If the Councils act as financier to the project then they are taking back risk on the project or diluting the
value of the consequences of the contractor for non or poor performance of the facilities delivered. The
Councils would therefore be responsible for due diligence on and managing key project risks that sit with
them. Furthermore, the Councils would not be incentivised to deduct penalties if it jeopardized the
contractor’s ability to repay financing costs to the Councils.
The ability of the Councils to have the project accounted for off its balance sheet would be severely
impaired, or made impossible, through significant capital investment (under current UK accounting rules).
The Councils would need to assess the importance of an off balance sheet position and not having to
account for the asset created, on its balance sheet.
In order to get an effective level of risk transfer the contract would still need to be structured so that there
was a reasonable element of private sector risk capital to ensure on-going performance for the full term of
the contract.
Availability of Prudential Borrowing

||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||
||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||
||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| |||
||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
236
Appendix 5b
|||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||
||||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| || |||||||| ||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||
|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||| ||||| ||| ||||| |||||||| |||||||||||
||||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| | ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||
||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
||||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||
|||||||| || ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||
|||||||| ||| |||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||
|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
|| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| |||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||
Project Finance
The vast majority (if not all) of the signed waste "DBFOM" PPP projects have been funded through a
traditional project finance structure. This involves the capital and other up-front costs which are to be
incurred prior to delivery of a service (and hence prior to any payment by the Councils) being funded
through a mixture of debt and equity. The ratio of debt to equity (which is referred to as the "gearing" on a
waste project) is typically anywhere between 80:20 and 90:10.
It is termed ‘project finance’ as the delivery and financing structure is built around the fact that the
contractor and funder are reliant on the income streams from the project as the source of repaying debt
and providing equity investors with a return on that investment. The contracting structure will be a Special
Purpose Company/ Vehicle (SPC / SPV) which will be formed for the purpose of delivering this contract.
It will have no existing assets. The banks will have very limited recourse to the assets of the major
companies that will bid for the contract and 'sit behind' the bid (as is the case with the Councils), and will
rely on sub-contracts for security.
Project finance is the basis on which standard PFI / PPP contract guidance has been developed. All other
forms of finance will require amendments to standard contract positions.
The gearing levels in waste projects are increasing as the market matures and funders get more
comfortable with the risks, the technologies, and the capabilities of the contractor's to deliver the contract
specifications long term. Increased gearing is advantageous as the cost of commercial debt funding is
cheaper than equity funding. This is because the nature of the terms and security packages required by
the banks means that there is a greater element of protection than for risk capital.
Although debt finance is cheaper, Project financed deals do however require a proportion of risk capital to
be invested to allow there to be appropriate levels of risk transfer and for there to be incentivisation of the
contractor to continue to deliver the output specification for the full duration of the contract.
The structure allows for project financed PPP deals to be classified off the Councils' balance sheet under
current accounting regulations.
The debt element (often referred to as 'Senior Debt') is usually provided by commercial banks of which
there are a range in the market from specialist lending divisions of the traditional UK high street banks,
through specialist PFI/PPP funders, to smaller continental funders who have had experience of lending to
technologies and understand the sector but who do not necessarily have detailed experience of PFI/PPP
contracts in the UK. Although other forms of project finance have been used in the UK PFI/PPP market,
including bond finance, they have not been used to any extent in the delivery of waste infrastructure.
237
Appendix 5b
In addition to the increased gearing and hence the amount of the cheaper debt finance used in waste
projects, the terms and margins have been improving, albeit are not as good as for less complex / more
market markets such as schools. The funder will charge the project a margin on the underlying bank
interest rate (normally higher during construction than operation). Funds will be drawdown by the
contractor against milestone activities. The interest on drawdown funds will 'rolled up' into the overall loan
until the facility is delivered. The interest and principal will be repaid over the majority (but not all) of the
contract operational period from the unitary charge payable by the Councils. The bank will seek to ensure
that cash is available from the project to pay the debt servicing using mechanisms such as reserves and
cover ratios which are all primarily designed to prevent the contractor from taking money out of the project
inappropriately.
One of the aspects of debt financing is that the funder will enter a 'Direct Agreement' with the Councils (or
the project's lead Contracting Authority, depending on the partnership's structure). This allows the bank
the ability to 'step in' to the contract and protect its investment interests prior to termination if the
contractor is not performing.
The equity element is usually made up of the following two elements:
Pre equity for which the investors are paid dividends; and
A band of similar investment types which include subordinated debt, mezzanine debt etc.
The latter will form the vast majority of the equity investment in a project, as unlike pure equity which
requires profits to be made before distributions can be paid (and hence makes the investment return
'back ended' in the project, subordinated debt interest payments can be made so long as there is free
cash available to withdraw from the project.
Equity investments are made primarily by the main contracting parties, equity arms of the project
financing banks, and specialist third party equity investment firms.
The overall 'blended' equity investment return on waste PPP projects is typically between 14% and 18%
nominal.
Benefits of Commercial Funder due diligence

Another issue to consider is that under the traditional PPP/PFI arrangements that exploits project finance
the Councils can take some comfort from the senior lender performing due diligence on the project and
satisfying themselves of its bankability. This would not be the case under a structure featuring prudential
borrowing, which would place greater importance on the role of the Councils' finance officers supported
by an advisory team. Risk mitigation will depend heavily on the contracting structure selected to embrace
the ownership, construction and operational functions essential to a successful project.
Corporate Finance
Corporate finance is where the funding is raised based on the credit strength of the contractor / its parent
company's business, and/or is existing cash reserves. Rather than a mixture of debt interest plus
investment returns, the contractor will seek an overall project return.
Corporate finance can be used as the basis of initial funding and investment during construction whilst the
project is at its riskiest, with the intention to refinance to project finance at a later stage and allow the
contractor to recycle its investment funds.
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| |||
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||
||||||||||| and |||||||| are companies that have sought to primarily fund its infrastructure investments through
corporate finance
238
Appendix 5b
Leasing
Grant Thornton is aware that an operating lease funding structure has been proposed by a funder on a
number of projects. The structure has a number of issues that would need to be considered such as (a)
ownership and control of treatment facility at the end of term and (b) affordability / certainty of payment
and (c) the contractual structure and terms and conditions.
Others
Grants
The Gwyrdd Partners will be aware that the Welsh Assembly Government ("WAG") is currently reviewing
how it intends to fund Local Authority waste management in Wales. WAG has not as yet set out how
much funding it will make available to projects such as Prosiect Gwyrdd.
European Investment Bank ("EIB")

The EIB raises substantial volumes of funds on the capital markets which it lends on favorable terms
relative to the UK commercial lending sector's to projects furthering EU policy objectives. The European
Investment Bank (EIB) has recently provided funding to a waste treatment project in the UK (Cornwall)
and it will be worth considering if the partnership's reference project meets the EIB's criteria (e.g. on the
basis of the project's area qualifying for European ‘Region 1’ funding) once it has been established.
Co-funded projects
In many instances it is possible that the Councils will not be able to borrow sufficient funds to finance a
waste project fully under the prudential borrowing framework, and will still require private sector capital for
at least some of the up-front expenditure. In this scenario there are a number of ways in which the
Councils could still make use of prudential borrowing, such as expenditure on purchasing a site,
restoration, planning, related civil engineering and infrastructure works, etc. In addition there is the option
to be a partial shareholder or partner in a project. Such structures need to be arranged carefully, as
complications often arise as a result of divergent objectives in cases of divided responsibility - and in joint
ventures.
239
Appendix 5b
Key Project Risks

The analysis of funding and contract options for the project cannot be done without undertaking a detailed
analysis of key project risks and understanding which party these risks sit with under each funding and
contract option.
The analysis of projects risks was done within the following 5 step Risk Management framework based on
HM Treasury's ‘Orange Book’:
1. Identify and group Risks
2. Agree Framework for assessing risks
3. Determine Risk Appetite
4. Assess Risks
5. Address Risks
Furthermore, the analysis was guided by the following two key principles:
(1) OGC's guidance states that "the primary consideration in the procurement of construction projects is
the need to obtain best value for money in the whole life of the service or facility. The design and
operation of the facility should maximise the delivery of effective public services; this is most likely to be
achieved through integration of the design, construction, operation and ongoing maintenance."
(2) Best practice in major projects indicates that risks should be allocated to the party best able to
manage such risks, taking all relevant factors into consideration.
The analysis of project risks was done in two stages.
Risk Workshop 1: 9th of January 2008
A first Risk Workshop held on the 9th of January 2008 to identify the key risks which could either have a
large impact on the costs of the Reference project and/or be difficult to manage. The evaluation was done
in light of the short listed technologies for the project. The format of the workshop was as follows:
1. Introduction - Risk Management Process;
2. Review of scope of project;
3. Explore key contract risks;
4. Risk allocation & contractual options; and
5. Risk allocation and management issues.
Risk Workshop 2: 16th of January 2008
A further more detailed Risk Workshop was held on 16th of January 2008 focusing on the technical risks
presented by the technical options. The workshop focused in particular on the interfaces of technical risks
240
Appendix 5b
between the Design and Construction phase and the Operate and Maintain phase of a project. This is in
line with CLG guidance which states that a procuring Authority needs to demonstrate how it has
considered the integration of design, construction, operation and ongoing maintenance for its project,
which the OGC sees as key to delivering value for money.
The workshop was supported by a paper provided by the Partnership's technical advisor Parsons
Brinkerhoff based on their experience as Owner’s Engineer for such residual waste treatment facilities.
The paper highlighted and quantified the impact of some of the key risks that can occur during the
operation and maintenance of Energy from Waste facilities.
The workshop then went on to quantify the likelihood and impact of all project risks both pre- and post-
mitigation measures.
The workshop also investigated the requirements of an input based contract in light of the technical
issues presented by the technologies with a view to determining if the Partnership wanted to proceed with
an input or output based contract.
Conclusions of the workshop
||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||
||| ||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||
||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||
||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| |||||
||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||
||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||
||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||
||| |||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||
||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||||||
|||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||| |||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||
||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||
||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||
|||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||
||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||||| || ||||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||| ||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||
241
Appendix 5b
Summary of Evaluation of Contract Option's Key Features
The table below sets out how the contract options' key features compare
Table 3 Evaluation of Contract Option Key Features
Design & build Integrated Design PPP :integrated

(D&B) + separate & build (D&B) and Design, Build,
Service Contracts Operation & Operation & Finance, Operation Partnering + other JVs
Maintenance (O&M) Maintenance & Maintenance
contracts (O&M) (BDFOM)
Cost At present there are Likely least costly Likely to be less Option likely to have Difficult to assess what
no existing option excluding the costly than PPP highest cost on non the cost of this option is
commercial waste cost of risks retained excluding the cost of risk adjusted basis as because it depends on
treatment facilities of by the Partnership risks due to it does not factor in scope of services, role of
the type and of which are significant, financing costs value of risks partner, the project risk
sufficient scale as determined by the (most likely cost of transferred to private allocation and who is
operating within South Partnership during its Prudential sector. Defra's providing the funding.
Wales to meet the Risk Workshops. Borrowing) being program level Value
Gwyrdd partnership's lower than under for Money
requirements. There PPP but because assessment of the
are a limited number there are very few DBFOM contract
of merchant plants in recent precedents of option for waste
England but these are this type of contract, projects relative to
unlikely to be capable it is difficult to traditional
of meeting the assess how procurement
Partnership's contractor's price (separate D&B and
objectives because of these contracts and O&M contracts funded
their location and in particular, how by public sector)
existing contractual the timing of the shows DBFOM to be
commitments. injection of better value for money
242
Appendix 5b

prudential borrowing on a risk adjusted
funds impacts upon basis.
the price the
contractor can
charge. .
Implications of cost
of risks retained by
the Partnership
would also need to
be understood.
Capital funding No capital funding The Partnership would The Partnership Facility(s) to be Depending on the nature
requirement requirement either need to make stage would need to make funded by the private of the partnership
from the Partnership capital payments for stage capital sector, the costs of arrangement, different
or the Contractor as the creation of a payments for the which are rolled into a aspects of the
the facility(ies) will bespoke facility. This creation of a 'unitary charge' infrastructure
already have been to be funded through bespoke facility. revenue payment by development could be met
developed prudential borrowing This to be funded the Partnership. by either Partnership
or capital grant. through prudential Partnership may make funding (per D&B) and / or
borrowing or capital capital contributions to by private sector financing
grant. the costs of (payable through a
construction or act (in 'unitary charge')
part or full) as a
'financier' to the
project.
243
Appendix 5b

Revenue The Partnership would Revenue costs in Revenue costs in The Partnership pays Revenue consequences
funding have to pay a gate fee respect of the respect of the a unitary charge which of any private sector
requirement in respect of usage / Partnership's Partnership' covers the costs of the financing + O&M costs to
performance targets operation and operation and private sector be met through revenue
to be met by the maintenance of the maintenance of the financing of the payments.
Contractor (i.e. BMW delivered facilities or delivered facilities or facility(s) and the on-
diversion) payments in respect payments in respect going operation and
of a separately let of a separately let maintenance of the
O&M contract. To be O&M contract. To facilities.
met from Partnership's be met from To be met from
resources. Partnership's Partnerships' revenue
Revenue resources. resources
consequences of Revenue
prudential borrowing consequences of
will also need to be prudential borrowing
taken account of if will also need to be
Prudential Borrowing taken account of if
was utilized Prudential
Borrowing was
utilized.
Precedents and Traditional waste Traditional waste No recent Still emerging market Very limited procurements
Local Authority contracts understood contracts understood precedents of in waste with limited of this nature in waste.
experience of by local authorities. by local authorities. signed contracts for deals signed. Given Procurement would have
procuring Not typically done for Not typically done for waste treatment the disaggregated to be tailored to the
contract type large infrastructure large infrastructure facility procured by nature of the Partnership's
projects and would projects and would Local Authority proposed project it requirements - would
require infrastructure require contractor to under this contract should be easier. require considerable pre-
244
Appendix 5b

to be in place (such as build at risk structure though 3 procurement work
spare capacity in local authorities are determining the exact
existing facility e.g. currently exploring / nature of the JV or
Merchant facility) or looking to procure partnership
for the contractor to them.
build at risk
Technology & Traditionally contracts Input spec and the Output spec so Output spec so Depends on the nature of
Specification would have been Partnership would Partnership does Partnership does not the partnering - would be
Input specification need to be technology not have to be have to be technology a mixture of other types
based but more and inputs specific technology specific specific
recently more output although as it is
based contracts have retaining technical
been procured (e.g. risks, should have
shorter term Interim specific technology
Waste Treatment and in mind.
Disposal contracts).
The Partnership would
need to be technology
and input specific.
Risk transfer Very limited risk V.limited risk transfer Greater Risk Greater Risk transfer - Depends on the nature of
transfer transfer of O&M likely to follow the arrangement - unlikely
risks but very limited standard form contract to allow the Partnership
risk transfer of but as not PFI can be additional benefits on top
Design and Build more flexible to allow of the sharing
risks potential better VFM mechanisms that would
be incorporated into a
PPP solution
245
Appendix 5b

Flexibility At Partnership's At Partnership's Contract for c.25 Contract for c.25 Depends on the nature of
discretion but would discretion but would years + change years + change the partnership - likely to
cost cost mechanism but mechanism but be more flexible than a
flexibility is flexibility is PPP
constrained constrained
Ownership of Remains with the Remains with Remains with With Contractor till the Depends on the specific
assets Contractor Partnership Partnership end of the contract arrangements and who
funds
246
Appendix 5b
Conclusions
The Partnership has come to the following conclusions to arrive at its choice of
preferred contract and funding option.
Service Contracts
At present there are no existing commercial waste treatment facilities of the type and
sufficient scale operating within South Wales to meet the Gwyrdd partnership's
requirements. There are a limited number of merchant plants in England but these are
unlikely to be capable of meeting the Partnership's objectives because of their location
and existing commitments.
The Partnership is aware of the fact that a UK waste management contractor may be
planning to a build major new waste treatment facility in South Wales. It is likely
however that the contractor would need to secure a substantial service contract for a
prolonged period of time, with guaranteed input tonnages for it to be financially
deliverable.
Chapter 22 of Government Accounting sets out the Government's general principles

which apply to the public sector's acquisition of goods and services including works
and states that goods and services should be acquired by competition unless there are
convincing reasons to the contrary. The form of competition should be appropriate to
the value and complexity of the procurement and barriers to the participation of
suppliers should be removed.
Given the absence of suitable existing facilities, tendering for a service contract would
not generate sufficient competition to ensure value for money for the Partnership and
as a result, this option has not been selected.
Partnering and other joint ventures
The Partnership has considered the scope of services of Prosiect Gwyrdd and
concluded that the project will focus on residual waste treatment.
There have been very limited procurements of this contract type in the local authority
waste market to date so there is an absence of the market data / evidence that would
help quantify the benefits it offers, however given the project's scope is limiting the
number of services required, it is unlikely that this choice of contract option would
deliver any significant economies of scale or value for money benefits over and above
all of the other contract options available. Furthermore, any procurement would have to
be tailored to the Partnership's requirements - which would require considerable pre-
procurement work determining the exact nature of the JV or partnership.
Integrating Contracts
OGC's guidance states that "the primary consideration in the procurement of

construction projects is the need to obtain best value for money in the whole life of the
service or facility. The design and operation of the facility should maximise the delivery
of effective public services; this is most likely to be achieved through integration of the
design, construction, operation and ongoing maintenance."
The Partnership has conducted Risk Workshop which concluded that as Energy from
Waste facility's operating and maintenance risks are not only significant but inherently
linked to the quality of the design and construction. For this reason, the Partnership
has concluded it will get better value for money if it integrates the Design, Build,
Operation and Maintenance of the treatment facility.
247
Appendix 5b
Funding route
Having concluded that the Design, Build, Operation and Maintenance elements of the
project should be integrated, the Partnership was left to assess two final contract
options:
(1) an Integrated Design, Build, Operate & Maintain contract with the Partnership
providing the funding for the Build of the facility (Option 1) and
(2) an Integrated Design, Build, Operate & Maintain contract with the private sector
providing the funding for the Build of the facility (Option 2)
Option 1 is likely to be less costly than Option 2 excluding the cost of risks due to its
funding costs (most likely to be the cost of Prudential Borrowing) being lower than the
private sector's funding costs under Option 2.
There are however very few recent precedents of the Option 1 type of contract and it is
difficult to assess how contractors will price these contracts and in particular, how the
timing of the injection of prudential borrowing funds impact upon the price the
contractor charges. The procurements currently being undertaken by |||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||| and ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||
have not as yet indicated whether they believe this type of contract is deliverable and
deemed value for money.
Furthermore, the implications of the cost of the risks retained by the Partnership under
Option 1 would also need to be understood. The Partnership has already concluded at
its Risk Workshop, that in light of its defined risk appetite (as per its Project Risk
Matrix) and the significant technical risks presented by the project during the Design
and Build phase of the project, the Partnership would not seek to provide funding for a
facility until it was proven to be "fit for purpose" (i.e. the Partnership would not make
stage payments during the construction period)
Based on the above, the project's Steering Group has concluded that the Design Build
Finance Operate and Maintain ("DBFOM") contract option would be its preferred
contract and funding option for the project but that it would explore with the market the
potential value for money benefits of utilizing prudential borrowing to pay for part or all
of the project's construction costs once the treatment facility is deemed fit for purpose.
248
Appendix 6a
Appendix 6a: Authority Agreements

This information has been redacted under Regulation 12 (4) (d) “material is still in the course
of completion”. This is a draft OBC which the project is still actively developing.
249
Appendix 6b
Appendix 6b: Advisors’ CVs

250
Appendix 7a
Appendix 7a: Site Identification

Potentially available land on existing and allocated B2 or major industry sites in the Prosiect Gwyrdd area
- extracted from the Recommended Draft RWP 1st Review March 2008 - Appendix G
Local Potential
Authority Name of site Location Owner Developable
Area Area
Caerphilly CBC Land at Oakdale Business Oakdale Local Authority 30.2
Park (Plateau 1)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Hawtin Park (South Pengam Private 6.1
Parcel)
Park (Plateau 2)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Dyffryn Business Ystrad Mynach Private 6.3
park (South Parcel)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Heads of the Valleys Rhymney WAG 3.1
Caerphilly CBC Land at Dyffryn Business Ystrad Mynach Private 4.9
Park (North Parcel)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Hawtin Park (North Pengam Private 4.5
Parcel)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Oakdale Business Oakdale local Authority 3.4
Park (Plateau 3)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Trecenydd Business Caerphilly Private 2.2
Park
Park (Plateau 4)
Caerphilly CBC Land at Western Industrial Caerphilly Private 1.1
Estate
Caerphilly CBC Land at Nine Mile Point Cwmfelinfach Local Authority 1.1
Cardiff CC Capital Business Park Wentloog Local Authority 14.7

Cardiff CC Brindley Road Grangetown Local Authority 7.2
Cardiff CC Prairie Site Cardiff Docks Private 16.2
Cardiff CC Wentloog Corporate Park Wentloog Joint Ownership 15.6
Cardiff CC Land adjacent to Freight Wentloog Private 12.7
terminal
Cardiff CC Texaco Tank Farm Cardfiff Docks Private 6.1
Cardiff CC Trident Park Cardiff Bay Private 4.6
Cardiff CC Land adjacent to the former Wentloog WAG 3.9
Acer building
Cardiff CC Pengam Green Cardiff Bay WAG 9.7
Cardiff CC Pacific Business Park Cardiff Bay Private 1.3
Cardiff CC Cardiff Business Park Llanishen Private No B2 land
available
Cardiff CC Roath Basin/ Junction Lock Cardiff Bay Private No B2 land
available
Cardiff CC Tremorfa Industrial Estate Cardiff Bay Private No B2 land
available
Cardiff CC Tyndall Street Cardiff Bay WAG No B2 land
available
Monmouthshire Quaypoint Magor Private 16.3
CC
Monmouthshire Grove Farm Llanfoist, Abergavenny Private 4.2
CC
251
Appendix 7a
Local Potential
Area Area
Monmouthshire Mamhilad Pontypool WAG 2.1
CC
Monmouthshire Wonastow Road Phase 1 Monmouth WAG 2.1
CC
Monmouthshire Ross Road Abergavenny Private 1.3
CC
Newport CC Llanwern Llanwern, Newport Private 39.5
Newport CC Queensway Meadows East Queensway Meadows, WAG 35.4
Newport
Newport CC Solutia Traston Road, Newport Private 28.3
Newport CC Sites 3& 4 Solutia Traston Road, Newport Private 28.3
Newport CC Queensway Meadows Tatton Road, Newport WAG 17.2
Newport CC Site 1 Solutia Traston Road, Newport Private 4.0
Newport CC Nash Mead South Queensway Meadows, Private 2.1
newport
Newport CC Rogerstone Railway sidings Wern Ind. Estate, Private 0.9
(2) Rogerstone
Newport CC Freshwater Queensway Meadows, Private 0.7
Newport
Newport CC Newport Docks (NV3) Newport Docks, Newport Private 0.7
Newport CC Newport Business Centre Corporation Rd, Newport Private 0.6
Newport CC Clearwater Road Queensway Meadows, Private 0.4
Newport
Newport CC Land adj unit 22 Maesglas Industrial Est., Private 0.3
Newport
Newport CC Stephenson St Ind. Estate Stephenson st, Newport Local Authority 0.2
Newport CC Newport Docks Newport Docks, Newport Private 0.2
Newport CC Orb Industrial Estate Stephenson St, Newport Local Authority 0.2
Newport CC Longditch Road Queensway Meadows, WAG 1.3
Newport
Vale of Land to South East of Miskin Private 54.2
Glamorgan Junction 34, M4(Miskin)
CBC
Vale of Cardiff International Airport Rhoose, Barry Joint Ownership 20.0
Glamorgan Business Park
CBC
Vale of Vale Business Park Llandow, Cowbridge Private 10.5
Glamorgan
CBC
Vale of Cardiff International Airport Rhoose, Barry Joint Ownership 10.4
CBC
Vale of Barry Docks Barry Private 9.0
Glamorgan
CBC
Vale of Llandow Trading Estate Llandow, Cowbridge Private 7.3
Glamorgan
CBC
Vale of Cardiff International Airport Rhoose, Barry Local Authority 5.7
252
Appendix 7a
Local Potential
Area Area
CBC
Vale of Sully Moors Road Barry Private 4.9
Glamorgan
CBC
Vale of Wimbourne Road, Barry Barry Private 4.1
Glamorgan Docks
CBC
Vale of Rhoose Quarry (south of Barry Private 2.9
Glamorgan Airport)
CBC
Vale of Marley Tile Site St. Mary Hill, Cowbridge Private 0.8
Glamorgan
CBC
Glamorgan
CBC
Glamorgan
CBC
Vale of Atlantic Trading Estate Barry Local Authority 0.6
Glamorgan
Vale of Atlantic Trading Estate Barry Local Authority 0.5
Glamorgan
253
Appendix 8a
Appendix 8a: Procurement and related costs

PROSIECT GWYRDD INDICATIVE PROCUREMENT COST SCHEDULE 2007/08 to Financial Close (May 2011)
2007-08 Financial Year 2008-09 Financial Years Project

Total Apr to Oct Oct to Mar Total 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total
9 mths 7 mths 5 mths 12 mths 12 mths 12 mths 2 mths 47 mths
Project Team
Project Team & Support 123,777 145,568 187,572 333,140 499,970 524,968 91,869 1,573,724
Supplies & Services 5,220 8,841 16,685 25,526 29,674 21,378 2,526 84,324
128,997 154,409 204,257 358,666 529,644 546,346 94,395 1,658,048
External Advisors 113,174 140,790 87,633 228,423 210,642 229,155 42,504 823,898
Contingency 0 45,203 34,810 80,013 20,000 20,000 10,000 130,013
Gross Expenditure 242,171 340,402 326,700 667,102 760,286 795,501 146,899 2,611,959
Funding
RCAF Approved to date -200,000 -65,000 -46,552 -111,552 -186,207 -186,207 -31,034 -715,000
Projected Partner Contributions -42,170 -275,402 -280,148 -555,550 -574,079 -609,294 -115,865 -1,896,958
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Local Authority share (5 partners): 8,434 55,080 56,030 111,110 114,816 121,859 23,173 379,392
254
Appendix 8b
Appendix 8b: OBC Cost Assumptions

Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules
255
Appendix 8c
Appendix 8c: Shadow Tariff Model Summary Sheets

Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules
256
Appendix 8d
Appendix 8d:
Shadow Tarriff Financial Model Assumptions
Booklet
accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules
257
Appendix 8e
Appendix 8e:
Financial Adviser Letter
Marcia Sinfield
Cardiff County Council
Project Accountancy
Room 430
County Hall
Atlantic Wharf
Cardiff
CF10 4UW
28 May 2008
Dear Marcia
Prosiect Gwyrdd Project
Grant Thornton has now completed its work as financial advisor to Cardiff County Council ("Cardiff") to
support the production of an Outline Business Case ("OBC") with regard to "Prosiect Gwyrdd", as set
out in the Official Order form issued on the 4th December 2007 which is subject to the terms and
conditions of a Framework Agreement dated 27th November 2007.
I am writing to confirm that we be believe that the Unitary Charge as calculated by our "shadow tariff"
financial model is materially correct for the purpose of the Outline Business Case based upon the
assumptions provided by the Prosiect Gwyrdd partners and their professional advisors.
Please note that we are not commenting on the appropriateness of the assumptions provided to us by
Prosiect Gwyrdd and its other professional advisors. We refer you to the assumptions used to
calculate the Unitary Charge which are documented in the Appendix 8c "Shadow Tariff Model
Summary" of the Outline Business Case to ensure that they reflect your assumptions for the project.
The work relating to establishing the affordability of "Prosiect Gwyrdd" has been undertaken by the
Prosiect Gwyrdd Finance Sub group with our support. The Prosiect Gwyrdd Finance sub group
members have undertaken their own checks to determine whether the cost of the project and the
affordability gap they have modelled is materially correct.
Yours sincerely
Rebecca Pritchard
Partner, Project Finance
For Grant Thornton UK LLP
Direct T: 0117 305 7817

Direct F: 0117 305 7784
E: rebecca.l.pritchard@gtuk.com
258
Appendix 8f
Appendix 8f:
Optimism Bias
Purpose
Optimism Bias (OB) relates to the demonstrated and systematic tendency for project appraisers to be
overly optimistic when considering project benefits and costs. HM Treasury’s Green Book
recommends that adjustments are made to the costs and works duration based on data from past
projects, adapted according to the characteristics of the project in hand.
Application
In demonstrating Value for Money, the level of OB will need to be considered to determine the
potential impact on the cost of the project. OB will be applied to the Value for Money assessment for
the reference project.
Guidance
The following guidance has been used in the determination of OB for Prosiect Gwyrdd:
Supplementary Green Book Guidance – Optimism Bias, HM Treasury
Supplementary VfM Guidance for Waste PFIs, Partnerships UK, September 2005
It is recognised that there is no robust data for determining OB for waste projects: ‘Defra is in the
process of establishing a database to collect relevant waste project data which will assist in the
determination of appropriate OB values’.
Determining Optimism Bias (OB)

The guidance provides upper and lower bounds for OB for capital expenditure and works duration for
a range of project types, expressed as percentages of cost or time. The theory is to start with the
upper bound OB percentage and aim to reduce this towards the lower bound through addressing each
of factors contributing to OB. A set of contributing factors (i.e. risks that lead to OB) is presented in
the guidance; these have been prepared from a study by Mott MacDonald for public sector projects. A
specific set of contributing factors and percentage contribution are given for each project type.
The definitions of the project types are:
Standard buildings projects – construction of buildings not requiring special design
considerations.
Non-standard buildings projects – construction of buildings requiring special design
considerations due to space constraints, complicated site characteristics, specialist innovative
buildings, unusual output specifications.
Standard civil engineering projects – construction of facilities, in addition to buildings, not
requiring special design considerations.
Non-standard civil engineering projects – construction of facilities, in addition to buildings,
requiring special design considerations due to space constraints or unusual output
specifications.
Equipment & development projects – provision of equipment and/or development of
software and systems.
Outsourcing projects – provision of hard and soft facilities management services.
These project type definitions are not exclusive to waste projects, but include all projects, such as
offices, prisons, hospitals, rail, road, utility, ICT services, etc.
259
Appendix 8f
The upper and lower OB percentages for CapEx are:

Optimism Bias (%)
Project type Capital Expenditure Works Duration
Upper Lower Upper Lower
Standard buildings 24 2 4 1
Non-standard buildings 51 4 39 2
Standard civil engineering 44 3 20 1
Non-standard civil engineering 66 6 25 3
Equipment / development 200 10 54 10
Outsourcing 41 0 N/A N/A
While the guidance suggests upper and lower bounds for OB and contributing factors for CapEx
quantum and works duration, there is no similar set of data suggested for other cost streams.
However, indicative ranges are provided in the guidance to inform the process.
The guidance explains that in accounting for OB the Value for Money assessment differentiates
between two key stages in the investment decision process; pre-Full Business Case (FBC) and post-
FBC, where FBC represents the date of contract award. The pre-FBC OB factor represents the
increase in estimated costs or shortfall in estimated income between the OBC and FBC stages. The
post-FBC OB factor represents the increase in estimated costs or shortfall in estimated income
between the date of contract award and the completion of the associated assets. The certainty in
costs will tend to be lower at the start of the project and increase as it moves towards contract
signature.
The first stage of determining OB has been to determine the overall OB factor, from the OBC stage
onwards. This is achieved through consideration of the mitigating factors in place for each of the
contributing factors appropriate to the project type. Subsequently, the split between pre- and post-
FBC has been estimated.
Optimism Bias Contributing Factors for Prosiect Gwyrdd

The table below sets each of the contributing factors to CapEx quantum and works duration OB for
Prosiect Gwyrdd, and the level to which it could be considered that each is mitigated, as agreed by the
Project Team on 30th January 2008.
The main strategies for reducing OB are:
Full identification of stakeholder requirements
Accurate costing
Project and risk management
These issues are addressed in the OBC.
260
Appendix 8f
Contributory factors to Upper Bound Mitigation

Description / Examples Suggested Mitigation Factor
Optimism Bias (%) (%)
Details of risk transfer to be clarified

Complexity of Contract Will be based on standardised
Payment mechanism to be defined 75%
Structure contract structures
Unforeseen amount of negotiation required on T&Cs
Value management necessary, but contractor not
involved early enough to allow for it Assume DBFO contract, so
Late Contractor Design could not be built due to construction contractor responsible for design
75%
Involvement in Design problems Funder will carry out own
Contractor provided design / construction feedback at technical due diligence
late stage resulting in re-design
Inexperienced contractor
Site H&S standards not met Contractor not yet selected but
Poor Contractor
75% will have selection criteria to
Capabilities Construction not carried out to necessary standards mitigate
Procurement Insufficient contractor resources
No precedent or guideline developed to procure WAG guidance is changing –
Government Guidelines 0%
leading edge project difficult to mitigate the unknown
Dispute over interim payments Standard contract structure to
Dispute and Claims Claims for changes in scope address claims
50%
Occurred Claims for late release of information by other Risks to contractor identified
stakeholders upfront
Joint steering group to ensure

consistency in data
Stakeholder interfaces not managed efficiently
Information Management resulting in information not being transferred 60% Management of third party
effectively stakeholders (e.g. public) needs
to be addressed through
communications strategy
Other 20% Tight procurement timetable with
261
Appendix 8f

potential overruns
Project progress will be closely
monitored by Steering Group

Not yet known but only

Construction to take place over existing mine –
established technology will be
Design Complexity requires complicated foundations 50% selected
Design built in difficult conditions
May be a contractual issue
Not yet known but only
New generation design
established technology will be
Degree of Innovation Unusual site conditions requiring innovative solutions 50% selected
Project Specific (e.g. high winds, sold conditions) May be a contractual issue
Contamination Will only use established
Environmental Impact Noise pollution 20% technology
Impact on wildlife EIA process will be followed
Sites - being identified through

Other 10%
LDPs and RWP processes
262
Appendix 8f

Number of services not anticipated

Output specifications not clearly defined
Client Specific Inadequacy of the Thorough review of OBC and
Oversight in facilities required 80%
Business Case assumptions is taking place
All stakeholders were not involved so needs not
defined or included in business case
Advantage that all Unitary
Different public sector parties having different
authorities so similar
Large number of interests
50% requirements
Stakeholders Approval process took longer due to number of Potential problems with members
parties involved and private pressure groups
Project assumes no external
funding is available - no additional
grants assumed
Difficulties obtaining financial backing It is considered that the project is
Funding Availability Additional funding made unexpectedly available later 80% bankable and there is sufficient
on, changing project scope funding from private sector (e.g.
banks)
Funding for procurement is
secure
Multidisciplinary team with
representatives from all
Inexperienced in delivering project of this nature authorities
Project management
Inadequate review of drawings by PM before 60% None of LA officers have done a
Team
construction project of this nature/size before
so external advisors have been
appointed
Insufficient ground investigation
Poor Project Intelligence Detailed design based on insufficient site information 0% No site yet identified
Insufficient surveying of existing conditions
263
Appendix 8f

Still developing project

Other 0%
requirements

No site yet identified but will be in

accordance with RWP and LDPs
Opposition from local community so risk of challenge is minimised
Public Relations 20%
Environmental protests Communications strategy being
developed to engage with all
stakeholders and public
Presence of badger setts within construction site
Environment Underground stream requiring protection during
Site Characteristics 0% No site yet identified
construction
Archaeological findings
Parliamentary Bill required for project initiation
Permits/Consents / Not yet known but only proven
Difficulties in obtaining planning permission, resulting 40%
Approvals technology will be selected
in appeal to SoS
Other 0% To be identified
264
Appendix 8f

Managed through stakeholder

Opposition by major political party involvement and member
briefings and communications
Political Impact on sensitive constituencies 60% plan
Lacks support from key political stakeholders Some uncertainty over political
climate
Some soft market testing carried
out but this is a very competitive
market and market interest will
Change in market demand resulting in change in need to be determined further
Economic funding priorities 50%
Uncertain economy for fuel, steel,
External Crash in stock market currency exchange rates
Influences Buffer included for interest rates
in financial model
Foreseeable changes to be
Legislation / Regulations Change in required standards 80%
managed under contract structure
Aware of developments in sector,
Unanticipated technological advancements but some technologies new to
area
Technology Computer virus 80%
Unlikely that technology will be
Limits in technology outdated prior to contract
commencement
Other 0% To be identified
265
Appendix 8f
Optimism Bias for Prosiect Gwyrdd Reference Project

It is recognised that a waste treatment project may not fall neatly into one given project type, and
propose the following capital expenditure split for the reference project for Prosiect Gwyrdd, based on
other waste projects:
Option 2a, Energy from Waste 35% non-standard civil engineering
65% equipment
From the guidance, the upper limit of CapEx OB is 145% for CapEx quantum and 42% for works
duration, as follows:
CapEx Works
Energy
Project Type Quantum Duration
from Waste
Upper Bound Upper bound
Standard Buildings 51% 39%
Non-Standard Buildings 24% 4%
Standard Civil Engineering 66% 25%
Non-Standard Civil
35% 44% 20%
Engineering
Equipment 65% 200% 54%
Total for Project 100% 145% 42%
The mitigation factors for the project are then applied to reduce the OB below the upper bound levels,
as set out below.
266
Appendix 8f
This shows that the CapEx quantum OB of the Non-Standard Civil Engineering element of the project
has been mitigated by 57%, and the works duration OB of the Non-Standard Civil Engineering
element by 53%. Similarly, the CapEx quantum OB of the Equipment element of the project has been
mitigated by 66%, and the works duration OB of the Equipment element by 64%. Overall this reduces
the CapEx OB of the project by 62.8% for CapEx quantum and 59.5% for works duration.
Applying these mitigation factors to the OB upper limits on the project split of 35% Non-Standard Civil
Engineering and 65% Equipment gives the resulting mitigated OB of 71%:
CapEx Works Total CapEx

Quantum Duration OB for Project
OB Upper Limit 145% 42% 188%
OB Mitigated 91% 25% 117%
Total 54% 17% 71%
This resulting OB must be split between pre-FBC and post-FBC. For overall CapEx (incorporating
CapEx quantum and works duration), the assumed split for the project is 1:3 pre-FBC to post-FBC,
meaning that 25% of the risks are mitigated prior to FBC. This is similar to the split suggested by the
Partnerships UK Supplementary Value for Money Guidance for Waste PFIs.
The Value for Money quantitative assessment also requires levels of OB for other cost elements.
These OB levels have been determined from the high end values put forward in the Partnerships UK
guidance:
Cost Element Overall OB % Pre-FBC OB % Post-FBC OB %

Capex 71% 18% 53%
Lifecycle 55% 15% 40%
Opex 30% 10% 20%
Transaction 30% 10% 20%
Third party income 20% 10% 10%
These OB levels have been used in the Value for Money quantitative assessment.
267
Appendix 8g
Appendix 8g:
Value for Money Model Databook

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Value for Money quantitative assessment considers how the quantifiable costs and
benefits of using the DBFOM contract option are likely to compare with conventional
procurement through the PSC. This involves estimating values for the capital and operating
costs attached to the project and adjusting these for any inherent optimism bias and/or
specific risks as well as expected transaction costs. For the DBFOM contract option, the
project cost is calculated using an assumption of private financing, adjusting relevant cost
factors accordingly. The ‘Value for Money Quantitative Assessment generic model’ issued
by Treasury (“Treasury model”) was used, as required by the guidance. This model has
been developed by the Treasury, in conjunction with Partnerships UK, to capture the values
and enable sensitivity testing that are required as part of the project level assessment. The
guidance defines the two procurement methods as follows:
1.2 This databook sets out the key assumptions used in the Quantitative Evaluation
Spreadsheet (the "Spreadsheet"). The outcome from the quantitative assessment is also
set out in "Section 8: Cost, Budgets and Finance" of this Outline Business Case (OBC).
2 QUANTITATIVE VALUE FOR MONEY ASSESSMENT MODEL
2.1 In conjunction with Partnerships UK, the Treasury developed a Value for Money model
which provides a comparison between the risk adjusted Net Present Cost (NPC) of the
Public Sector Comparator (PSC) and the DBFOM option.
2.2 This model has not been used to assess affordability or to generate a shadow unitary
payment due to differences in methodology and coverage. A separate shadow tariff
modelling exercise has been carried out by the Partners.
3 RESULTS
3.1 The results of the base case VfM position are shown in the table below.
Crude 'VfM' position

IRR 13% 22.9%
IRR 15% 21.1%
IRR 18% 18.1%
Under the base case scenario the preferred option offers substantially better value for money in
quantitative terms under DBFOM than the PSC alternative, under each of the internal rate of return
(IRR) scenarios highlighted in the model and the Treasury guidance.
4 ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS
The inputs for the spreadsheet follow the guidance entitled "Value for Money Assessment Guidance"
and "Quantitative Assessment User Guide” issued by the Treasury in November 2006 and March
2007 respectively.
4.1 The base case VfM quantitative assessment model referred to in this data book is based
upon the DBFOM Quantitative Evaluation spreadsheet prepared by the Treasury and is
named:
268
Appendix 8g
VFM Assessment v2 for PG.xls
4.2 The assumptions set out in this databook represent the base case VfM position. A
sensitivity analysis has been conducted on the assumptions and the results from the
sensitivities are set out.
4.3 The costs from the shadow tariff model have been rebased to 2011 prices and averaged
over the operating period (for lifecycle and operating costs) to produce the required inputs
for the VFM model.
4.4 The workings behind these adjustments are within the VFM Assessment File (inputs from
models and calculation of model input sheets). Some of the shadow tariff outputs were
reformatted for inclusion in the VFM workings; these are noted in the VFM model and refer
to the following file:
STM to VFM workings 270808.xls
5 TIMINGS
Contract period - 30
5.1 The contract period relates to the length of the concession plus the length of the
construction period. The concession period is assumed to be 26 years with an expected
phased construction period of 4 years.
Initial capex period - 4

5.2 The initial capital expenditure (capex) period relates to the expected length of the
construction period. The construction period is expected to be a 4 year period, phased in
line with the construction profile set out in the financial model's capex cost input sheet.
Year when opex is first incurred – 4
5.3 The year when operating expenditure (opex) is first incurred has been input as year 4, the
year in which the construction of the facility is completed. The spreadsheet model charges
a full year of opex in this year as an inbuilt assumption.
Initial capex period payment (%) - 0%

5.4 The initial capex period payment percentage allows for the situation where the unitary
charge is first paid before the end of the construction period. In this project, the unitary
charge is only payable after construction so the resulting figure is nil.
6 COST INFLATION
Capex Escalator - 0%
6.1 The capex escalator relates to the annual price inflation for initial capital expenditure during
the construction period. As the initial capex construction costs have been input as outturn
costs, the capex escalator is 0%.
OpEx (non-employment) escalator - 2.75%
6.2 ||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||
|||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||
269
Appendix 8g
||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| ||| ||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||
||| |||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
Opex (employment) escalator - 2.5%

6.3 The annual price inflation for operating expenditure employment costs has been set to
2.5% in line with expectations.
Unitary charge escalator - 55%

6.4 The unitary charge escalator is based on the level of revenue expenditure likely to index.
The shadow tariff calculation currently estimates this to be 55% and this figure has been
used accordingly.
7 PUBLIC SECTOR COMPARATOR (PSC) COSTS
|||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||||||||||||

7.1 ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
7.2 ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||
||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||
|||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||| ||||| ||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||| |||||||| ||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||
||||||
||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||| || |||||||||||||||

7.3 ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||
|||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||| ||||||||| || ||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||
||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||||||
||||||| ||||| |||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||
||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||
|||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| || ||
7.4 ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| ||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
|||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||.
||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

7.5 |||||||| |||||| ||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||| |||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||| |||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||
7.6 ||||||| |||||||| ||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||| |||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||
|||||||| |||||| ||||||||
270
Appendix 8g
||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| || ||||||||

7.7 |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| || ||||

7.8 |||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||
||| ||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

7.9 ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||
7.10 ||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||
||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||| |||||| ||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||
8 PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE (DBFOM) COSTS
|||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||||||||||||

8.1 ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||| ||||||
|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
8.2 ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||
||||||| ||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||| |||||||| |||||||||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||
||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||| |||||||| ||||| |||||||| || |||||||||||||

8.3 ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||
8.4 ||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||| ||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||||| |||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||
||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

8.5 ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||
|||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||
8.6 ||||||| ||||||||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||
||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||
||||| ||||||||||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| || ||||

8.7 |||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||
||| ||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||
271
Appendix 8g
||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

8.8 ||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||
||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||
|||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||
||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||
||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

8.9 |||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||
|||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| |||
|||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| || ||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
9 OPTIMISM BIAS
|||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||| || |||||||

9.1 ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||
|||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||
|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||||||
9.2 ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||| ||||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||
9.3 ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||| ||||||| ||| ||| ||||||
||||||||||||||||||
9.4 ||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||
|||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||| ||| |||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||

9.5 ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||
||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||
|||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
|||||| |||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || |||||||

9.6 ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||
||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||
|||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| || |||||||
9.7 ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||
||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||| || |||||||

9.8 ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||
|||||||||||||||||| |||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||
|||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||
272
Appendix 8g
||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||| ||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||

9.9 ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||
||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| || |||||||

9.10 ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||
|||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||
||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||
||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||||||||||| |||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||
|||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| || |||||||
9.11 |||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||
|||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||
|||||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||
9.12 ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||| ||| ||||||
||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||
10 THIRD PARTY INCOME
10.1 ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||
|||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| || |||||||||||||
10.2 ||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||| |||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||| |||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| |||
|||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||| |||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||
|||| ||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||
|||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||| |||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||
11 FLEXIBILITY
11.1 |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||||||||
|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||| || ||||

11.2 ||||||| |||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||| |||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| || |||||||

11.3 ||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||| |||||||||||
||||||||||||| ||| |||||||| ||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||| ||| |||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||
273
Appendix 8g
||||||||| |||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||| || |||||||
11.4 ||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||| ||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||
|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| || |||||||

11.5 ||||||||||| |||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| |||
||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||| |||||||
||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||
12 INDIRECT VFM FACTORS
12.1 ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||
13 TAX
|||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| || ||||||

13.1 ||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||| ||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||
|||||||||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||
13.2 ||||||| |||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||| |||| ||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| || |||||||
||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| |||||| ||||| ||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| ||||| |||||||||||||||||
14 DBFOM FUNDING
|||||||||||||| || |||||||||||
14.1 ||||||| |||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||
14.2 ||| |||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| |||||| |||||||| |||
||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||| ||| ||||| ||||||||||
|||||||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| || |||||||||||

14.3 ||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| |||||||||
|||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||| |||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||
14.4 ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| |||||| ||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||| |||||||| |||||| ||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
||||||| ||||||||| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| |||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||||||| ||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||| ||||||
|||||||||||| ||||||| ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||||||||||| ||||| ||||||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||| ||||||||||| ||||| |||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||
|||||||
||||||||||| |||||||||||| || |||||||||||

14.5 ||||||| ||| ||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||| |||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||| |||||||||||| |||
||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||||
274
Appendix 8g
||||||||| |||||||||||| || |||||||||||||

14.6 ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||| |||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||| |||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||
|||||||||| ||| ||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||||||| |||||
||||||||||||||||||
15 INDIFFERENCE POINTS
15.1 The Treasury VfM quantitative assessment model incorporates a number of in-built
analyses of indifference points (or breakeven points). The indifference points demonstrate
the extent to which one cost variable, given that all other costs remain the same, would
have to change to create a neutral quantitative VfM position. The indifference points are
presented as a percentage of the cost.
15.2 The results of the indifference point analysis under the base case scenario at each required
IRR are as follows:
13% IRR - % 15% IRR - % 18% IRR -

change for change for % change
neutral VfM neutral VfM for neutral
VfM
PSC
Initial capex -39% -36% -31%
Opex (non-Employment) -103% -95% -82%
Opex (employment) -183% -168% -144%
Transaction costs -2,059% -1,891% -1,625%
DBFOM
Unitary charge +36% +32% +26%
16 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
16.1 A number of sensitivities have been conducted to assess the impact of the assumptions
made regarding various input values. The sections below set out the results of the
sensitivity analysis.
Swap rate
16.2 The swap rate assumed in the base case VfM quantitative assessment model is based
upon the assumptions used in the shadow tariff model. In order to test the sensitivity of the
VfM quantitative assessment to changes in the swap rate the following sensitivities were
performed.
Scenario 1 - swap rate increased by 1% to 6.46%

Scenario 2 - swap rate increased by 2% to 7.46%
Inputs Base case Scenario Scenario

1 2
Sterling swap rate (%) 5.46 6.46 7.46
IRR 13% 22.9% 19.0% 15.0%
IRR 15% 21.1% 17.1% 12.1%
IRR 18% 18.0% 14.0% 9.9%
275
Appendix 8g
16.3 The table above demonstrates that even significant changes in the swap rate or the interest
rate between the Outline Business Case stage and financial close would not impact on the
conclusions derived from the 'crude VfM' position within the range tested. There is a 50bps
buffer included within the rate modelled in the base case.
Optimism Bias
16.4 The impact of optimism bias on the quantitative VfM assessment has also been assessed
through sensitivity analysis. The scenarios tested are as follows:
Scenario 1 - pre-FBC optimism bias reduced by 20% for capex, lifecycle and
opex
Scenario 2 - post-FBC optimism bias reduced by 20% for capex, lifecycle and
opex
Scenario 3 - pre-FBC optimism bias increased by 20% for capex, lifecycle and
opex
Scenario 4 - post-FBC optimism bias reduced by 40% for capex, lifecycle and
opex
Inputs Base Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

case 1 2 3 4
Optimism bias capex pre-FBC 18% 14% 18% 22% 18%
Optimism bias lifecycle pre-FBC 15% 12% 15% 18% 15%
Optimism bias non-employment 10% 8% 10% 12% 10%
pre-FBC
Optimism bias transaction costs 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
pre-FBC
Post-FBC optimism bias capital 53% 53% 42% 53% 32%
costs
Post-FBC optimism bias lifecycle 40% 40% 32% 40% 24%
costs
Post-FBC optimism bias non- 20% 20% 16% 20% 12%
employment costs
IRR 13% 22.9% 23.7% 17.9% 22.1% 12.3%
IRR 15% 21.1% 21.9% 16.0% 20.2% 10.2%
IRR 18% 18.0% 18.9% 12.8% 17.3% 6.8%
16.5 As can be seen from the results of the optimism bias sensitivity analysis the crude VfM
position is only affected by large changes in the optimism bias and there would be no effect
on the VfM decision.
Lifecycle
16.6 The following sensitivity analysis scenarios have been conducted to assess the impact of
changes in lifecycle costs:
Scenario 1 - PSC lifecycle costs are 10% lower

Scenario 2 - PSC lifecycle costs are 20% lower
276
Appendix 8g
16.7 The model shows positive crude VfM in all of these scenarios.
OpEx (non employment)

16.8 The following sensitivity analysis scenarios have been conducted to assess the impact of
changes in non-employment costs:
Scenario 1 - non-employment costs under the PSC are 20% lower than in the
base case
Scenario 2 - non-employment costs under the PSC are 30% lower than in the
base case
16.9 The model shows a positive crude VfM in all of these scenarios.
17 CONCLUSION
17.1 Under the Treasury value for money quantitative assessment guidance Prosiect Gwyrdd
demonstrates that DBFOM is significantly better value for money than the PSC in the base
case scenario, as explained in this document and under the sensitivity scenarios that have
been performed.
277
Appendix 8h
Appendix 8h:
Value for Money - Qualitative Assessment
The basis of this assessment is based on HM Treasury's Value for Money guidance for waste projects published in November 2006
Viability
For a Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain contract to be viable the investment objectives and desired outcomes for the project need
to be translated into outputs that can form the basis of a contract and a sound payment mechanism; for example, the quality and quantity of
the outputs need to be ones that can be clearly defined and measured. Many service areas can be described in contractual terms, but some
areas will be inherently ‘non-contractible’ as outputs.
Issue Questions Response

Programme level Is Defra / Welsh Assembly Government Defra is satisfied that long-term contracts can be constructed for the
objectives and satisfied that long-term contracts could be Reference Project as it has provided and is continuing to provide
outputs constructed for projects falling in this area? significant funding for similar projects in England. Whilst the Welsh
Assembly Government (WAG)'s position on the funding of and policy on
DBFOM is not explicit at this moment, the Partnership believes based on
its meetings with WAG to date, that WAG is supportive of this approach.
The Partnership's preferred option is for the delivery of a residual waste

solution. There is evidence in the UK that the infrastructure required can
be designed, built, financed and operated over the period envisaged and
the waste specific contract guidance which the Partnership plans to use.
The Partnership is proposing to minimise the number of services

included within the procurement to treatment and disposal in order to
maximise the potential for the project to be successfully procured but will
revisit the scope of services procured if it chooses to assess any further
services.
278
Appendix 8h

Can the contractual outputs be framed so that The proposed contract primary objectives will be to divert BMW from
they can be objectively measured? landfill in order to meet legislative and economic drivers. The
Partnership is looking to deliver under the waste hierarchy and the "Wise
about Waste" Welsh Assembly Government's Waste Strategy, the
contract is intended to support this hierarchy.
The Partnership is developing a performance framework around the key

contractual drivers for the framework which will be supported by
performance monitoring. The performance framework and output
specification will be market tested prior to entering into procurement.
Is the requirement deliverable as a service The contract is for the design, build, finance and operation of the
and as a long-term contractual arrangement? facilities for a 25 year operational period.
Could the contracts describe service
requirements in clear, objective, output-based The contract will be formed based on standard contract guidance and
terms? will incorporate a payment mechanism which reflects the requirements
of the outputs specification for landfill and BMW diversion (the payment
mechanism will not focus on availability)
Can the quality of the service be objectively The Facility will be operated under a permit under a tight regulatory
and independently assessed? environmental regime. The delivery of the service will therefore be to an
agreed standard will be measured by the Environment Agency, Planning
Authorities and the Partnership's contract management team. All
standards are objectively measurable.
The facility(s) created will be independently assessed prior to allowing

full service commencement to demonstrate 'fit for purpose'.
Is there a good fit between needs and Need is driven by EU legislation, UK and WAG implementation with
contractual outcomes? penalties for failure. The affordability test indicates that a contract should
deliver best value relative to the status quo "do minimum" option.
279
Appendix 8h

Can the contracts be drafted to avoid The contract payments will be based on tonnages delivered and will
perverse incentives and deliver quality incorporate a guaranteed tonnage payment element. This will be set by
services? the Partnership at a level such that there will be no perverse incentive to
deliver tonnage which would otherwise be subject to upstream recycling
and recovery.
Given the potential for waste growth and the impact on capacity, and the
potential changes in composition over the contract period a key element
of the technical evaluation will be in respect of the flexibility of the
solution.
Will there be significant levels of investment This is an infrastructure led contract which is appropriate for a Design,
in new capital assets? Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain style contract with a modelled
capital requirement at the commencement of the contract of around
£165million.
Are there fundamental issues relating to staff No fundamental staff transfer or workforce issues are anticipated.
transfer or other workforce issues?
If there are interfaces with other projects, are There are potentially a number of contracts that would interface with this
they clear and manageable? contract either on an-going basis or through transitional arrangements.
These are:
landfill contract(s) - these are up for renewal part way through
the procurement process which will allow the Partnership to
understand the best approach to renewing to fit in with the
implications of the chosen solution
Partnership's collection Contracts - the solution is expected to
be able to operate based on the current and anticipated
collection methodologies of the Partners. However, it will be a
feature of the evaluation that the technological solution can offer
flexibility to meet changes in collection methodologies, but
equally it is recognised that collection methodologies may need
to be reviewed to ensure that the best overall Value for Money
("VFM") solution for the Partnerships can be delivered.
280
Appendix 8h

Soft services Are there good strategic reasons to retain soft The Partnership's members ("the partners") are best placed to optimise
service provision in-house e.g. longer-term their own upstream collection and recycling activities and the critical
implications of skill transfer? public interface during service change because of the number of
partners involved and because of the number of likely changes that are
likely to be required to increase recycling and composting levels to meet
the WAG targets. The partners will retain all domestic waste collection
services and these will not be included within the scope of the Gwyrdd
project. In addition, HWRC and composting / digestion activities are the
subject of on-going infrastructure development and improvement by the
individual partners. This is a separate function being proposed and the
Partnership do not see any value in incorporating HWRC and
composting facility management into the contract at this stage, in order
to make procurement as straight forward as possible. The Partnership
may however consider at a later stage looking at a joint procurement for
some of these activities.
The contract will not be passing on waste minimisation or education

responsibilities to the Contractor as the Contract proposed is for a
specific downstream element of the waste service and the Partnership
believes keeping these services "in house" represents "best value".
What are the relative advantages and In some cases there maybe benefits in service delivery of the contractor
disadvantages? Is optimal risk allocation taking on the operation of household waste recycling centres and/or
achieved by transfer or not? commercial waste collection, but these are not obviously apparent given
the nature of the proposed contract, the number of partners and the
likely changes to these services that will be required over the next few
years to achieve the Welsh Assembly government's increased recycling
and composting targets.
Is there a commitment that the assumed No fundamental staff transfer or workforce issues are anticipated
benefits can be delivered without eroding the because of the scope of services therefore this will not be an issue but
overall terms and conditions for staff? the Partnership's members will continue to communicate regularly with
their staff's unions as and when required.
281
Appendix 8h

Operational Is there a practical balance between the Flexibility as well as continuous improvement will be a key element of
Flexibility degree of operational flexibility that is desired the evaluation of bidders’ submissions. In order to enhance flexibility the
and long-term contracting based on up-front contract will include the appropriate level of benchmarking/market
capital investment? testing to ensure an appropriate balance between operational flexibility
throughout the contract life.
This will cover flexibility to cover changes in tonnage and composition,

as the Partnership see there are key uncertainties on waste growth and
technology development. Through its waste flow modelling the
Partnership have assessed likely minimum and maximum levels of
waste and have developed the preferred solution on this basis. Also, the
relative cost of fixed plant size and modular solutions has been
evaluated in the Options Appraisal.
Equally, the Partnership has built in opportunities to both increase and

decrease waste for treatment through flexing the amount of 3rd party
waste that is treated during the contract period.
The Partnership has also considered a more modular and phased

approach to meeting the proposed contract's objectives but the benefits
of the approach are deemed to be outweighed by the cost of the loss of
economies of scale. Similarly, the Partnership has considered the
benefits of additional operational flexibility of a 20 year contract but
again considers the costs of this approach of higher annual payments
outweigh the benefits of this approach. The contract is to include
provisions for a review of the service prior to the end of the contract
term, which will provide the Partnership with the flexibility of extend the
contract.
282
Appendix 8h

What is the likelihood of large contract The contract is for BMW diversion and diversion of waste from landfill
variations being necessary during the life of which are based on meeting WAG policy and the LAS drivers which are
the contract? in place up to only a third of the way into the contract. In addition the UK
Government is sending messages through increases in landfill tax that
overall landfill avoidance should be a key part of waste strategy across
all sectors. This is coupled with the increasing cost of landfill. This would
suggest that the drivers for the contract are likely to remain in place for
the foreseeable future.
However, the contract period is long and therefore there is a risk that
policy / legislation may be put in place in the future which the technology
cannot achieve (in part or as a whole, for example around the carbon
agenda), although the Partnership's technology options appraisal and
choice of technology is focused on delivering against all of these key
policy drivers.
Can the service be implemented without As stated previously the Partnership considers that flexibility of the
constraining unacceptably the flexibility of the solution will be a key evaluation issue. In addition the Partnership
department to deliver future operational welcome the enhancements in the Change Provisions developed as part
objectives? of SOPC4 contract guidance.
Equity, efficiency Are there public equity, efficiency or No
and accountability accountability reasons for providing the
service directly, rather than through a
DBFOM contract?
Does the scope of the service lend itself to The service does have clear boundaries. The Partnership is seeking to
providing the contractor with “end-to-end” procure primarily a residual waste treatment facility/ process where the
control of the relevant functional processes? responsibilities and interfaces are clear between the Partnership and the
Does the service have clear boundaries? Contractor.
Are there regulatory or legal restrictions that There are no regulatory or legal restrictions that require the services to
require services to be provided directly? be provided directly.
OVERALL Overall, in considering DBFO, is the The contract structure should aid the delivery of the Partnerships'
283
Appendix 8h

VIABILITY Partnership satisfied that suitable long-term strategic aims and objectives, achieving flexibility while still being value
contracts with sufficient flexibility can be for money.
constructed, and that strategic and regulatory
issues are appropriate for the Partnership to
proceed with a DBFOM contract?
284
Appendix 8i
Appendix 8i: PFI Grant Calculation

Information redacted relating to the financial or business affairs of the partners, and others in accordance with Rule 10 of the Access to Information
Procedure Rules
285
Appendix 9a
Appendix 9a: Technical report of findings

from Market Testing Jan 2007
Report of the Responses to the OJEU Prior Information Notice for the Treatment and Disposal of
Residual Municipal Wastes.
Background
In South Wales, a sub-regional waste partnership of Cardiff, Monmouthshire, Newport and the Vale of
Glamorgan is working to provide a long-term solution to the treatment and disposal of residual wastes.
This collaborative project named “Project Gwyrdd” is to provide a sustainable waste management
alternative to the historic practice of landfilling and to comply with the limits now affecting the landfilling of
damaging biodegradable municipal waste. The partnership provides the best opportunity to minimise
environmental damage and through the benefits of joint procurement and operational scale provides best
value for the taxpayer.
To commence the market testing exercise a Prior Information Notice was published in the Official Journal
of the European Union - OJEU in November 2006.
Market Testing
At this preliminary stage the Authorities have not formed a definite view as to what form of treatment and
disposal should take but are concerned to limit the amount of residual waste sent to landfill sites such as
to:
Achieve or better their collective responsibilities as Waste Disposal Authorities under the Landfill
Allowance Scheme (Wales) Regulations 2004.
Achieve or better future limits on the land filling of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) through to 2020
made under amendments to these Regulations.
Minimise residual BMW to protect the Authorities beyond 2020.
Such treatment and disposal may include dealing with residual waste by mechanical biological treatment,
energy production from waste or other innovative approaches to treating and disposing of residual
wastes. It is likely that the facility will need a total scale of notionally 300,000 tonnes per annum when fully
developed, responding to the requirements of the wider region and the contribution to landfill diversion in
the context of Wales.
The Authorities invite the market place to inform the Authorities procurement process and to this end
would welcome written submissions (not exceeding 4 sides of A4 paper) from potential suppliers
indicating (i) their likely interest in bidding for such procurement (ii) the potential technical and commercial
options for meeting the above requirements and (iii) any indicative costing information that can be
provided (by reference to costs of other schemes)
The Authorities intend to use the information gathered to shape the proposed procurement process and
specification for this project. Accordingly commercially confidential information should not be disclosed.
Participating in this market sounding exercise will not guarantee short listing at a later stage in the
procurement and the Authorities reserve the right not to proceed with the procurement process. The
Authorities will not meet the costs incurred by any party in responding to this notice. Written submissions
were to be sent to the Procurement & Supplies Offices, Cardiff County Council by 20/12/06.
286
Appendix 9a
Written Submissions in response to the PIN

22 companies identifying a range of technical solutions responded, some included indicative figures for
Capital Costs for the facilities, and for annual gate fees. This information is identified in Appendix B.
The large number of responses to the PIN confirms that there is a “keen” market appetite for such a
project.
The technical solutions ranged from AD, Autoclave, MBT, MBT to SRF/RDF, MBT to EFW, EFW, Biogas
production, Gasification and Pyrolysis and a small number of technical consultants offering assistance or
software packages.
Conclusions
This technical report analyses the returns and will promote a move into full procurement for use in the
decision making process of each partner authority.
The project appears to be highly marketable.
The project scope will demand the highest environmental standards and therefore does not rely on any
change of definition surrounding refused derived fuel being a waste.
PR to promote the initiation of the project has been developed and put into the public domain. The project
is called “Project Gwyrdd” because of the transformation in practice it will achieve, notably reducing future
consumption of green fields and production of the damaging leachate and methane inexorably linked with
current landfilling practice.
Project Gwyrdd is being scoped to allow for a combined heat and power solution, providing for high
thermal efficiency.
Project Gwyrdd is being scoped to provide recovery of value from commercial and industrial wastes that
cannot be otherwise recycled and composted.
Project Gwyrdd delivers an alternative solution to the current landfill shortage in Cardiff, Monmouthshire
and the Vale of Glamorgan; conserving green space or allowing otherwise competing developments.
In summary, Project Gwyrdd is being developed and structured to maximise landfill diversion by providing
a solution for residual municipal wastes that cannot be practically recycled or composted. It is capable of
providing for Wales a significant contribution to the achievement of 2012/13 EU Landfill Directive legal
limits for biodegradable municipal waste as part of an integrated solution involving high recycling and
composting achievements across Wales. Future success relies on the continuing collaborative approach
of Welsh local authorities and the support and resources of the Welsh Assembly Government
287
Appendix 10a
Appendix 10a: Programme Timetable
288
Appendix 10a
289
Appendix 10a
Key
290

Execut e 08 12 04 A Rep K

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Execut e 08 12 04 A Rep K

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prosiect Gwyrdd

Procurement of Waste Treatment Facilities

Outline Business Case

5.5 Payment Mechanism ...............................................................................................................65

2b Summary of Partner Municipal Current Waste Management Services 121

3a Summary of Partner Municipal Current Waste Management Strategies 126

3b Status of Partner Authorities’ Waste Local Development Plans 131

4a Waste Management Options & Criteria Development 134

4b Technical Assumptions – Whole document redacted 146

4c Options Evaluation 172

4d Bankability – Redacted version 191

4e Carbon Footprint Assessment 192

5a Project Risk Register – Redacted version 201

5b Contract and Funding Options – Redacted version 230

6a Authority Agreements – Redacted version 249

6b Advisor CVs – Redacted version 250

7a Site Identification 251

8a Procurement and related Costs 254

8b Cost Assumptions – Whole document redacted 255

8c Shadow Tariff Model Summary– Whole document redacted 256

8d Financial Model Assumptions Booklet – Whole document redacted 257

8e Financial Adviser Letter 258

8f Optimism Bias 259

8g Value for Money Databook – Redacted version 268

8h Value for Money 278

9a Market Testing Report 286

10a Programme Timetable 288

Abbreviations and Glossary

NPC Net Present Cost

Section 1: Executive Summary

1.3 Strategic Waste Management Objectives

1.4 Procurement Strategy and Reference Technology Example

Waste Minimisation and Education Activities

Transport to the facility or landfill;

1.5 Option Appraisal Summary

Table 1: Options Evaluation Summary

BMW diverted through treatment

Recycling & composting through

End market availability

Weighted scores (high=good) Ranking

1.6 Risk Management, Risk Allocation and Contractual Structures

1.6.3 The main risk aspects anticipated are:

1.7 Project Team and Governance

1.8 Sites, Planning and Design

1.9 Costs, Budget and Finance

1.10 Payment Mechanism

Incentivise the Contractor to deliver to the agreed service standards;

1.11 Balance Sheet Treatment

1.12 Stakeholder Communications

2.1.5 The benefits of partnership working include the following:

minimise residual BMW to protect the Authorities beyond 2020;

2.2 Details of Key Characteristics of Area Profile

2.3 Analysis of Waste Arising

Table 2.2 Cardiff Council - Municipal waste arising 2004/05 – 2006/07

Household Trade Waste MSW 2 Increase /

Cardiff 1.5% MSW growth per year to 2015, reducing to 1% thereafter

Monmouthshire 1% MSW growth per year up to 2012, 0.5% to 2020, 0%

Vale of Glamorgan 3% MSW growth per year up to 2012, reducing to 1% up to 2015

Table 2.6 Forecast of Annual MSW Arising 2006/07 – 2024/25

2.4 Details of Current Arrangements for Collection and Disposal

2.5 Performance of Existing Services

Table 2.7 Projected proportions of Municipal Waste Recycled and Composted

Food waste Total recycling &