‘Discrepancies, contradictions, false claims’: Experts clash over Waikato waste-to-energy plant

Sunday, 29 June 2025

ANALYSIS: English waste-to-energy and waste incineration expert Dr Andrew Rollinson was withering in his view on the application to build a $205 million “nationally significant” waste-to-energy incineration plant in the Waikato that would burn hundreds of tonnes of waste each day.

“I've looked at many permits and planning applications over the last 12 years. This one is particularly bad in terms of its quality,” Rollinson told an independent board of inquiry at the FMG Stadium in Hamilton this week into the proposal to build the Paewira waste-to-energy plant with 60m chimney stacks in Te Awamutu.

“It's incomplete. There are multiple discrepancies, contradictions, and false claims.”

He was particularly concerned the Global Contracting Solutions’ proposed plant would be burning “hazardous” waste in the form of flock, a word for waste left after the scrapping of cars and whiteware, generally composed of metals, fibres, foam, rubber, plastics, glass and dirt, many of which contain chemicals like fore retardants.

The plant would not burn hot enough to handle the hazardous material, and that would result in dangerous, long-life chemicals, including dioxins, being discharged into the environment, he told the inquiry on Wednesday.

The Paewira proposal is deeply contentious in Te Awamutu, and opposed by local residents who have rallied under the “Don’t burn Waipā” slogan.

The Waipā District Council told the hearing on Thursday that the plant was in the wrong place, would hurt human health, and by 2050, Te Awamutu would nearly double in population, exposing more people to pollution from the plant.

Evidence provided by one its witnesses said the building of the waste-to-energy plant would mean higher house prices in the area.

Burning waste to generate energy has become a national topic, with Fletcher Building announcing this week that it intended to burn hard-to-recycle plastics at its Golden Bay cement plant.

Incinerating waste to generate power, and keep waste out of landfills, is billed by the company that wants to build the Paewira plant as beneficial to the country, and Te Awamutu, including generating jobs.

Opponents argue it would add to the country’s carbon footprint, lock in a “feed the beast” mentality that would national hinder efforts to drastically cut the generation of waste, and pollution in Te Awamutu would rise, damaging the health of those living nearby.

They also claim the amount of electricity it would produce is minimal and overstated, meaning it is in effect a waste incineration plant, not the waste-to-energy plant applicant Global Contracting Solutions says it is.

Global Contracting Solutions is majority-owned by scrap metal businessman Craig Tuhoro. Much of the flock that Paewira would burn would come from a scrap yard in South Auckland owned by Global Metal Solutions, a company that is also majority owned by Tuhoro.

Rollinson was not the only expert witness who had concerns with the quality of the Paewira application.

Hydrology expert Helen Rutter, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday on the threat to groundwater, criticised the absence of any details on how polluted waste water from the plant would be treated.

Exactly what would be burned was not yet clear. The applicant expected to burn 175,289 tonnes of material a year, including 17,529 of flock, 35,058 tonnes of tyres, 78,880 of municipal waste and 35,058 tonnes of plastics.

However, the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Zero Waste Network think that mix is unlikely. They do not think Paewira will get that tonnage of tyres as end-of-life tyres are already being disposed of elsewhere under the Tyrewise national product stewardship scheme, and think the proportion of hazardous flock that gets burnt would likely be higher.

Rutter said knowing what the potential contaminants would be was necessary to being able to assess the threat to groundwater pollution.

The hearings have been highly technical, and expert witnesses for the applicant and its opponents have provided conflicting opinions on the threat of pollution to groundwater, expected levels of airborne pollution, economic impacts, and harm to the health of people living around the plant.

Australian Dr Jackie Wright, an expert witness for the applicant, gave evidence the risks to human health from the proposal were “negligible”.

Dr Simon Hales - an expert witness for the EDS and Zero Waste, lead author of a national epidemiological study that quantified the impacts of air pollution on mortality and morbidity - disagreed.

He said socio-economically deprived communities living close to the proposed plant had substantially higher expected levels of underlying mortality and morbidity compared to more advantaged communities.

The inquiry asked Hales to say how many people would die prematurely as a result of the plant being established. He said out of every 5000 people around the plant, an extra 12 people aged over 30 would die prematurely over 35 years, which is the maximum length of the consent the applicant is seeking.

Underlying those early deaths would be an increase in chronic disease for sufferers of conditions like asthma and cancer.

Should there be an incident, like a fire at the plant, or unconsented emissions of higher levels of pollutants, the effects could be higher, the board heard.

Hales said the area was already relatively highly-polluted, and Paewira would make things worse.

“There’s a reason to say it is not acceptable to increase that health impact,” he told the board.

It was “discomforting” to be discussing the level of human health deterioration that was acceptable, said board member Myles McCauley, who has more than a quarter of a century of experience as an air quality specialist, but, he said: “I guess that’s what we are doing.”

There were no national guidelines on what level of exposure and risk was acceptable, McCauley said.

“That does make it pretty difficult to determine.”

Around Te Awamutu there is a feeling that they are threatened with paying a health price for other cities’ waste.

Aucklander Lydia Chai’s name came up in tea breaks at the hearing.

The Malaysian New Zealander has campaigned to end the unlicensed export of polluting plastic waste for recycling in countries like Malaysia, where it was damaging the environment and human health.

As Malaysia is to New Zealand, Te Awamutu would be to Auckland, people felt.

The Paewira facility would be built near a large Fonterra factory, homes, two childcare centres and the Waipa Racecourse, however, there are fears the population affected would rise, as it is expected the racecourse will be developed into housing for hundreds of families.

Environmentalists and Fonterra found themselves on the same side at the hearings.

Fonterra’s Te Awamutu dairy factory has been there for nearly 150 years, and is strategically important for the town, employing about 350 people.

Fonterra fears increased air pollution could threaten the factory’s future, taste-tainting of its dairy, causing repeated shutdowns during periods when airborne pollution spiked, and exposing it to unacceptable toxins.

Even the perception of risk could result in countries like China deciding to stop accepting products from the factory, it said.

“The project is incompatible with the existing food production activities in the surrounding environment, which have been in place for over 140 years,” lawyer Daniel Minhinnick, representing Fonterra at the hearing on Tuesday, said.

Fonterra said there had been no thought to locating the plant somewhere somewhere more rural.

It’s position got some unexpected support from Rollinson on Wednesday. He told the hearing: “It’s lunacy to build it next to a dairy facility.”

In its evidence, Fonterra also raised a contentious point that did come up several times in expert evidence for opponents: whether the plant would, during its lifetime, be run in compliance with its consents.

Rollinson told the board that pollution levels around plants overseas indicated this was a real issue.

James Hook, expert witness on planning matters, said: “The risk is that no matter how well drafted conditions are, and maybe how well prepared management plans may be, that the operation of the plant falls short meeting those standards at some point in its operational life with consequential adverse effects, for example, an uncontrolled discharged ear with a resident population just hundreds of meters away from the plant.

“It's a low probability, high potential impact type thing.”

Fonterra, in its evidence brief, said the board would need to have “complete trust” that it would operate in compliance with consents.

“In our submission, the applicant's past conduct and compliance record (including that of its related entities) demonstrate that the board cannot have full confidence compliance will occur,” it said.

That was a reference to an order in May 2022 from the Environment Court, which ordered Global Metal Solutions to pay $134,900 to the Hamilton City Council for persistent noise breaches that had caused nearby residents to experience “considerable and appreciable” adverse effects on their wellbeing.