Page 190 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
been the subject of numerous site visits since June 2015. Since the beginning of December 2015 EPA officers have visited Mugga Lane on 14, 15, 23 and 24 December 2015 and again on 11 January 2016 following further complaints. I also understand ACT NOWaste officers have inspected the Mugga Lane site on 5, 16, 19 and 24 November; 7, 10 and 21 December; and 7 and 14 January. NOWaste has confirmed that on none of these visits were odour levels abnormal.
An officer from capital works also visited the site and surrounding suburbs on 4 and 5 January 2016 and reported that no odour was present at the landfill boundary, with the exception of a slight organics odour at the front entrance on 5 January. Officers have also visited the surrounding residential areas on numerous occasions in relation to after-hours odour complaints, with the most recent visit being undertaken on the evening of 11 December 2015, with the EPA officer unable to smell a garbage-like odour. The visits reveal that the odour on the site has been at environmentally acceptable levels and the operators are complying with their responsibilities in respect of odour management.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I offer this information not to suggest there is no problem or that the investigation has concluded but simply to show how seriously the government is taking this matter and to highlight the level of investigation currently underway. While it has not been determined that the Mugga Lane landfill is the source of the odour, as a precautionary measure, the EPA has required the landfill operator to modify its method of temporary covering of the tipping face at the end of each day’s operations.
It should also be noted that the Mugga Lane landfill has a relatively low ratio of putrescible waste to inert waste and, as such, is not considered odorous landfill by industry standards. The Mugga Lane landfill has been taking the ACT’s waste since the 1970s. It is the territory’s primary landfill and the only landfill able to receive putrescible waste or general solid waste. As such, it is an important asset for the ACT.
While many regions of Australia are battling with growing populations and waste management requirements, including suitable new landfill locations, this government took the responsible step in 2012 of acquiring additional land adjacent to the existing landfill to allow for future construction. In last year’s budget the ACT government provided $21 million for the construction of cell expansion at stage 5 at the Mugga Lane landfill, and this is in addition to the $19.8 million provided for the first two landfill cells in stage 5.
I would like to reassure Ms Lawder and other members of the Assembly that as part of its commitment to improving the environmental management of the Mugga Lane landfill the EPA has also asked ACT NOWaste to undertake modelling to assess the potential odour impact of the planned future expansion of stage 5 as a condition in the development application for the construction of the next planned cells. NOWaste supports this approach, and will work closely with the authority to develop terms of reference for this work. These actions will ensure there is sufficient landfill capacity to receive the territory’s waste, if required, for many decades into the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video