Waipā District Council has released the 872 public submissions made regarding the proposal, revealing Fonterra is among the parties opposed to the plant and asking for the proposal to be declined.
The application to buildthe plant at 401 Racecourse Rd, Te Awamutu, between the racecourse and the Fonterra effluent ponds, was filed in August by Hamilton-based company Global Contracting Solutions, which is also seeking resource consent from Waikato Regional Council.
If the application was successful, the plant, called Paewira, would burn 150,000 tonnes of waste annually, sourced from councils across the wider Waikato region, and generate 15 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide for about 14,000 average households.
The council said the vast majority of submissions opposed the plant.
Fonterra would be a direct neighbour of the plant, and in its submission, it specifically raised concerns regarding food safety.
“While, in general, Fonterra supports proposals that aspire to assist with New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy, Fonterra opposes the application in its entirety in its current form and seeks that it be declined,” the submission said.
“As a food manufacturer, Fonterra has concerns regarding ... potential impacts [of the waste-to-energy plant] on food safety, risk of contaminants entering the dairy manufacturing facilities and the subsequent response required by Fonterra to manage the elevated risk, the impact on Fonterra’s food safety certification, and the health and safety of staff and contractors who work at the Te Awamutu site.”
Fonterra’s Te Awamutu site is the sixth-largest producer of dairy ingredients in New Zealand, processing up to three million litres of milk every day during the peak of the season.
The site has been in operation in its current location for almost 140 years and employs more than 330 people.
Global Contracting Solutions intends to build the plant at 401 Racecourse Rd.
Fonterra said as it had clients worldwide, it was also concerned about the impact the waste-to-energy plant would have on its reputation.
“Fonterra is aware that its domestic and international customers are concerned with any perceived or real food safety risk associated with the combustion of waste products in such close proximity to its Te Awamutu site,” the company said in its submission.
“As part of its overseas operations, Fonterra’s experience is that other waste-to-energy facilities have not established in close proximity to its food processing operations.”
Talking to the Waikato Herald in September, Global Contracting Solutions project manager Adam Fletcher said the plant had been specifically designed to be “appropriate and compliant and safe”.
“There are a number of these plants in proximity to food production facilities and the centre of city townships and shopping malls around the world. Those facilities have been judged as acceptable [by the countries they are built in],” Fletcher said.
He said the company had engaged with the community and affected businesses, including Fonterra.
Meanwhile, other parties have also raised concerns in their submissions.
The Te Kōpua Marae Committee, representing the 1600 Ngāti Unu and Ngāti Kahu hapū members, expressed “strong opposition” to the proposal based on the “mātauranga Māori worldview”.
“Te Kōpua Marae has assessed the resource consent application using our mātauranga Māori tikanga and practices, in particular utilising the Matariki framework endorsed by the Ministry for the Environment.
“The proposed waste incinerator plant fails the Matariki assessment criteria in the following categories: ururangi [air quality], ... waipunarangi [climate], ... tupuānuku [soil], ... Matariki [people and culture, and] ... hiwa−i−te−rangi [future aspirations].”
Protesters of the proposed incinerator in Te Awamutu. Photo / Julia McCarthy-Fox
Fire and Emergency New Zealad made a submission saying it was neutral on the application. However, the organisation noted “there is potential environmental risk associated with attending a fire at the site and the resulting firefighting water entering the river”.
“Firefighting water is discharged at 65 litres per second and along with water discharged from the building sprinkler system, it is unclear as to whether the site will be able to contain the firefighting water.”
Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand Waikato also made a submission saying it was neutral towards the application, but it noted concerns regarding noise.
“The associated acoustic assessment [made as part of Global Contracting Solutions’ application] has been completed based upon assumptions, but given the scale of the proposal, these assumptions could be incorrect. Therefore, the predictions may be under or over-estimated,” Te Whatu Ora’s submission reads.
“The acoustics assessment does not consider the effects of heavy vehicles on the public road network, particularly on Racecourse Rd up until SH3. Vehicles may have adverse noise and/or vibration effects on the dwellings and other sensitive receivers [eg. a school and early childhood education centre] on Racecourse Rd.”
The decision on whether the plant could be built would be made by a panel of three independent hearing commissioners. Local councillors won’t be involved in the decision-making.
The commissioners would be appointed before Christmas, but it was unlikely the hearing itself would be held until March or April 2024 at the earliest.
A decision following the hearing could take several weeks, meaning a final decision is unlikely before mid-2024.
A venue for the hearing had not yet been decided.
Waipā District Council district growth and regulatory services group manager Wayne Allan said while the proposal drew in a record number of submissions for Waipā, the decision wouldn’t be made based on numbers.
“Our council received 872 submissions on the proposal and Waikato Regional Council received 824 ... The vast majority of the submissions oppose the plant, [but] it is not about numbers either opposed or in support. Commissioners are legally required to assess the application ... [based on] the Resource Management Act.”
“Both councils are seeking further information from the applicant so there are a lot of things still to be worked through before all that information even goes in front of the commissioners.”
The hearing will be held in public, and those who have indicated they wish to be heard will be able to speak to the commissioners directly.
All submissions, including a small number of late submissions, are now online.
