ACT NoWaste demolishes Capital Recycling plant proposal

ACT No Waste’s director, Michael Trushell, blasted claims space is running out at Mugga Lane as "incorrect and misleading", and described the expectation that the territory will maintain the tip as a back-up should the plant fail as "ironic".

The interdirectorate advice on the company's draft environment impact statement, obtained by Fairfax Media, also reveals ACT No Waste believes "no significant opportunity will be missed in the event the proposal is not approved".

Capital Recycling's director, Adam Perry, was swift to point out the document was only a draft, and said the company would respond to ACT No Waste's concerns in its final environmental impact statement.

"I think that comment is an opinion and duly noted, we don’t have anything further to add," Mr Perry said.

But the No Waste memo pulls the rug out from under many of the assumptions on which the proposal was built, saying it appeared to be "financially driven rather than being driven by resource recovery initiatives".

In it, Mr Trushell called the proposal "incompatible" with the ACT's long-term strategy to reduce waste.

He pointed out that the 300,000 tonnes of rubbish Capital Recycling wanted to divert from the Mugga Lane tip to its plant was in fact an over-estimation used to inform planning at the Mugga Lane Resource Management Centre.

"ACT No Waste advises that the current figure for waste deposited in the Mugga Lane landfill is approximately 240,000 tonnes per annum. Of this, the mainstream waste stream is approximately 70,000 tonnes," he said.

"The ACT government has an existing household waste and recycling collection contract that delivers mainstream waste to the Mugga Lane Resource Management Centre.

"The ACT government and ACT No Waste are not aware of an arrangement between Capital Recycling Solutions and the ACT government for mainstream waste collected through kerbside bins to be diverted from Mugga Lane so therefore the planned facility could only expect to receive around 170,000 tonnes of waste, originating from the commercial and industrial sector."

Mr Trushell wrote the assertions that Mugga Lane's life was limited, the landfill was expensive to run and presented little in the way of recycling opportunities were "incorrect, not substantiated with evidence or analysis, and misleading".

"The current operational and under-construction cells provide landfilling capacity until 2030, which means the territory will not need to commit further capital funds until 2026-27," he said.

Mr Trushell said the company also needed to find another back-up plan, after it said it would divert rubbish back to Mugga Lane if its plant failed for some reason.

"The environmental impact statement proposes the territory maintain its landfill, presumably at taxpayers’ expense, as a back-up in the event the [plant] fails," he wrote.

"It is ironic that the proposal seeks to compete with the territory’s major landfill, however, at the same time requires the territory to maintain this landfill as a back-up in the event of service failure at the proposed materials recycling facility."

Mr Trushell said the claim that the recycling plant would reduce transport costs was "patently irrational", as it involved moving waste "some 60 kilometres from the ACT through a process of triple handling".

Plans for truck movements failed to take into account the current restriction on garbage trucks from entering residential areas before 7am.

The company had provided no evidence that it had spoken to the transport sector about extending operational hours, or considered driver availability and the associated costs.

While Capital Recycling Solutions wanted to divert 90 per cent of waste from Mugga Lane within the first 16 months of operation, it would only achieve a maximum recycling rate of 20 per cent.

"It is unclear how a 90 per cent diversion rate can be achieved - unless this means diversion from one landfill to another," Mr Trushell wrote.

Mr Perry said the proposal was "largely" compatible with the ACT's long-term waste strategy, and  that "some 30,000 tonnes per annum and growing" of waste was already travelling from Canberra to Woodlawn via road.

"Transport for the proposal is not just based on residues, but also recyclable materials and general freight which will be shipped out to the commodities market. We’ll be operating a commercial rail freight terminal which will be transporting general freight, recyclables and waste residues daily," he said.

On the issue of land clearing, he said the development consent for the Mugga Lane expansions stated that some open woodland clearing will be necessary.

"Presumably pasture and woodlands are better than a landfill cell," Mr Perry said.