What The EIA Actually Says

Incinerator
of Death

TNG's own experts studied what the smoke from this incinerator would do to the families living nearby in Lautoka. This page shows you what those experts found — and what they admit they could not check.

See the Evidence ↓

When rubbish burns, it releases dangerous chemicals into the air. Some of those chemicals cause cancer. Before a big project like this can be approved, the developer must hire experts to study those chemicals and show that local people will be safe.

TNG — the Australian company behind this incinerator — hired GHD, a large Australian engineering firm, to do that health study. GHD studied the cancer-causing chemicals that this incinerator would release.

For most of those chemicals, GHD admits in their own report that they could not properly check whether the people of Lautoka would be safe.

Here is what their report actually says.

All quotes below are taken directly from GHD's Air Quality Assessment and Human Health Risk Assessment — prepared for TNG and submitted to the Fiji Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in March 2026.
Share this report with decision makers, community leaders, and media. Download Full Report (PDF) ↓

Six Cancer-Causing Chemicals — Six Failures

GHD studied six groups of cancer-causing chemicals that this incinerator would release. For every single one, there is a serious problem with the assessment.

01

Dioxins

Proven to cause cancer in humans. There is no safe level of exposure.

Dioxins are released when rubbish burns. They cause lymphoma and other cancers. Scientists agree there is no amount of dioxin exposure that is completely safe — even very small amounts increase your risk of cancer.

Dioxins do not stay in the air. They fall onto soil, onto crops, into the sea. They enter your body through the food you eat — especially fish. They build up in your body over years. For a coastal Fijian family whose main food is fish from the reef, this is the most serious danger.

GHD's own report says:
"there is no criteria for dioxins and furans to compare the GLCs to"
"The cumulative impact of dioxin and furan emissions from the Project activities could not be assessed as there is no existing background data."
In plain language: GHD calculated how much dioxin this incinerator would release. Then they admitted they had nothing to compare that number against. They could not tell us whether it was safe or dangerous. And they could not check how much would build up in people's bodies over the 30-year life of the plant.
02

Fine Dust in the Air

Proven to cause lung cancer. Already above safe levels before the incinerator opens.

Very fine dust particles — so small you cannot see them — cause lung cancer when you breathe them over many years. This kind of dust comes from traffic, industry, burning, and cooking fires.

GHD measured the existing air quality in the area before the incinerator is even built. What they found is alarming.

GHD's own report says:
Existing fine dust levels already reach 152% of the health limit — before the incinerator adds a single day of emissions.
Existing coarser dust levels already reach 175–188% of the health limit.
In plain language: The air in Lautoka already has more dangerous dust in it than health experts say is safe. Now TNG wants to add 64,872 kilograms of extra dust every year from the incinerator — on top of levels that are already too high.
Note: GHD used only two weeks of air quality monitoring as their baseline — which they admit does not give a full picture of actual year-round conditions.
03

Arsenic, Chromium & Nickel

Three metals proven to cause cancer in humans. None of them were properly tested.

When rubbish burns, it releases heavy metals. Three of those metals — arsenic, chromium, and nickel — are proven to cause cancer in humans. Arsenic causes skin, lung, and kidney cancer. Chromium causes lung cancer. Nickel causes lung and nasal cancer.

You would expect these three cancer-causing metals to be carefully tested and modelled in a health assessment. They were not.

GHD's own report says:
Arsenic, chromium, and nickel were assessed "qualitatively only" — meaning no proper air dispersion modelling was done for any of them.
Instead of testing these metals, GHD used lead emission rates as a substitute and assumed the metals would be within safe limits.
In plain language: GHD did not model three of the most dangerous cancer-causing metals this incinerator would release. Instead, they used a different metal as a guess and assumed the others would be fine. That is not a cancer risk assessment. That is a guess dressed up as science.
04

Cadmium & Lead

Cadmium causes kidney and lung cancer. Lead damages children's brains.

Cadmium and lead are both released when rubbish burns. Cadmium is a cancer-causing metal that damages kidneys and causes lung cancer. Lead is especially dangerous for children — it damages brain development even at very low levels.

GHD did test these two metals. They found levels within the daily limit. But then they admitted something important.

GHD's own report says:
"The cumulative impact could not be assessed as there are no existing background data."
In plain language: GHD could tell us how much cadmium and lead this incinerator would release on a single day. But they could not tell us how much would build up in the bodies of local families over 30 years. For cancer risk, it is the lifetime exposure that matters most — and that cannot be assessed.
05

Benzene

Proven to cause leukaemia — blood cancer. Levels reach 74% of the danger limit just from normal operation.

Benzene is a chemical in the smoke from burning waste. It causes acute myelogenous leukaemia — a serious form of blood cancer. This is not a rare or theoretical risk. It is a documented and proven cause of cancer.

GHD's own report says:
Benzene-equivalent levels in the air reach 74.7% of the one-hour danger limit during normal operation.
During start-up and shut-down — when the incinerator is turning on or off — levels reach 85% of the danger limit. Carbon monoxide and other chemical emissions double during these periods.
In plain language: Even when everything is working normally, benzene levels near this incinerator would reach nearly three-quarters of the danger limit. When the incinerator starts up or shuts down — which happens regularly — it gets worse. An incinerator burning 900,000 tonnes of rubbish per year will start up and shut down many times throughout its operating life.
06

Poisonous Ash

The most toxic output from any incinerator. Its effect on the reef and ocean was not studied.

When rubbish burns, it leaves two types of ash. Bottom ash is the heavy residue left at the base of the furnace. Fly ash is the fine powder carried up through the smoke — it is the most dangerous material produced by any incinerator because it concentrates the heaviest metals, the most dioxins, and the most toxic chemicals from the entire waste stream.

This incinerator would produce up to 56 tonnes of fly ash every single day. That ash must be stored somewhere. The planned storage area sits beside the Dreketi Inlet — directly next to the reef and the mangroves.

GHD's own Flood Study confirms that the ash storage area floods to over one metre in a 100-year storm event. GHD's own Climate Risk Scan confirms that cyclones are an extreme risk for this site — and that extreme storms will become more frequent and more severe over the 30-year life of the plant.

GHD's own report says:
The risk of fly ash leachate — poisonous ash water — entering the ocean and the reef was not assessed in the health study.
In plain language: The most toxic waste from this incinerator will be stored next to the ocean. During a cyclone or a flood, that ash will wash into the reef. Fiji's coastal communities eat fish from that reef. The health study does not look at this pathway at all.

Why the Whole Assessment Cannot Be Trusted

It is not just individual chemicals that are the problem. The entire health assessment has five structural failures that mean its conclusions cannot be relied upon.

1
The emission numbers came from TNG — not from independent testing.

The amounts of cancer-causing chemicals in the model were given to GHD by TNG — the company that wants this project approved. GHD did not independently verify these numbers. If TNG's numbers are wrong, the entire health assessment is wrong.

2
The air quality baseline was only two weeks long.

To understand whether new pollution is safe, you need to know how much pollution already exists. GHD measured existing air quality for just two weeks. That is not enough to understand the full picture of a place where people live year-round, for decades.

3
For the most dangerous chemicals, there is no baseline at all.

For dioxins, cadmium, mercury, lead, and benzene, GHD could not calculate how the incinerator's emissions would add to what is already in the environment — because there is no existing data on those chemicals in the area. Without that, long-term cancer risk cannot be calculated.

4
Three proven cancer-causing metals were never properly tested.

Arsenic, chromium, and nickel — all proven to cause cancer — were not run through the air dispersion model. A different metal was used as a substitute and those three were assumed to be safe. This is not how health risk assessment is supposed to work.

5
GHD says they are not responsible if their assumptions are wrong.

The most telling sentence in the entire 96-page report appears in Section 1.5.

"GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect."

— GHD Air Quality Assessment, Section 1.5. Prepared for TNG. Submitted to the Fiji Ministry of Environment, March 2026.

This is the cancer risk assessment for the people of Lautoka. The consultants who wrote it say they are not responsible if they got it wrong.

One More Thing

Every page of this report carries this warning:

"This document is in draft form and contains information that is confidential and/or proprietary. It must not be relied upon or used in place of appropriate professional advice. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document."

This is what TNG submitted to the Fiji Government as their cancer safety assessment. A draft document. One that its own authors say must not be relied upon. One that they can change or take back at any time, without telling anyone.

There Is More

Cigarettes Carry More Warnings
Than This Ash Report

“This is not a risk assessment. It is a discussion paper. The difference matters enormously — this document was submitted as part of an EIA meant to guide a government decision affecting millions of people and an irreplaceable coastline.”

That sentence describes TNG’s ash disposal report — Appendix M of the same EIA. It covers what happens to up to 196,000 tonnes of hazardous residue this incinerator will produce every single year. The report names no receiving facility. It acknowledges the export plan may violate international law under the Basel Convention. It devotes two sentences to the environmental risk of storing hazardous ash beside the ocean.

The cancer health study is a draft that must not be relied upon. The ash disposal report is a discussion paper that must not be relied upon. Together, they are TNG’s submission on the two most dangerous outputs of this incinerator.

Read the Ash Disposal Analysis →

The Government Is Deciding Right Now

The Technical Review Committee is examining this EIA. Every objection matters. Add your name and share this page with everyone you know.

Sign the Petition Write to the Minister Download This Report (PDF)
← Back to heritagecoastfiji.com