Health risks raised red flags

Fiji's Department of Environment has raised significant red flags over public health and environmental safety, leading to the rejection of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a proposed waste-to-energy facility. The department found that the EIA did not sufficiently assess the full impact of emissions and hazardous waste. Specifically, it failed to properly evaluate key pollutants linked to waste combustion, such as dioxins, heavy metals, and other toxic substances. Permanent Secretary for Environment Dr. Sivendra Michael stated that the assessment also neglected to consider how the plant would operate under abnormal conditions. Furthermore, the human health risk assessment was criticized for not adequately quantifying all relevant exposure pathways. This included long-term cumulative exposure, bioaccumulation, marine and fisheries-related pathways, and tank water exposure for nearby communities. "The department was therefore not satisfied that public health risk would be acceptable or capable of being effectively managed through approval conditions," Dr. Michael said. Concerns extended beyond air quality to the handling of hazardous fly ash and other residues. The EIA lacked a complete and validated plan for treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste within Fiji. Director of Environment Senimili Baleicau noted that the Technical Review Committee found the report insufficient against its terms of reference, failing to adequately address public and stakeholder concerns. Critical gaps in baseline environmental data, including air quality, groundwater, and marine ecology, remained unresolved. The cumulative effect of these issues meant the risks to people, communities, and the environment could not be adequately managed under the proposed development.

“

The human health risk assessment also did not adequately quantify all relevant exposure pathways including long-term cumulative exposure, bioaccumulation, marine and fisheries related pathways, tank water exposure and so forth for other resource owners and coastal communities living in close proximity to this facility. The department was therefore not satisfied that public health risk would be acceptable or capable of being effectively managed through approval conditions.