Il-Wasteserve: fil-Magħtab qed topera bla permess

Diversi bdiewa fil-Magħtab ġew mitluba biex jikkuntattjaw il-Wasteserve sa tmiem dan ix-xahar biex ikun iffaċilitat aċċess għall-art li qed jaħdmu u dan bl-iskop li din tkun eżaminata, “bil-ħsieb li possibilment tiġi akkwistata għal skop pubbliku”. L-avviż legali numru 1261 li kien ippubblikat fil-Gazzetta tal-Gvern tas-17 ta’ Diċembru 2019 jgħid li hemm tmien biċċiet art fil-Magħtab li qed ikunu ikkunsidrati. Din l-art għandha qies totali ta’ 254,144 metru kwadru, jiġifieri ftit iktar minn 226 tomna. Il-parti l-kbira minn din l-art għadha qed tinħadem minn bdiewa minkejja ċ-ċirkustanzi diffiċli li nħolqu kemm ilhom joperaw il-miżbliet fil-Magħtab sa mill-1975.

Xi ħtieġa għandha l-Wasteserve għal din l-art? Hemm tlett materji ewlenin dwar l-iskart li huma pendenti.

Il-miżbliet tal-Magħtab dalwaqt jimtlew. Bla dubju din is-sitwazzjoni wasalna għaliha qabel ma kien antiċipat minħabba li qed jintrema wisq skart. Ir-riċiklar għadu f’livell insinifikanti. Il-ġbir tal-iskart organiku b’mod separat għadu fil-bidu. Hemm ħtieġa urġenti biex in-nies tagħraf iktar il-ħtieġa li tnaqqas kemm l-iskart kif ukoll l-ammont tiegħu li qed jintrema fil-miżbliet.

Il-Gvern, probabbilment li qed iħejji biex jimplimenta l-wegħda elettorali dwar l-egħluq tal-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin li jittratta l-iskart. Din hi l-wegħda numru 27 fil-Manifest Elettorali tal-Partit Laburista fl-Elezzjoni Ġenerali tal-2017. Probabbilment li dan ukoll jispiċċa fil-kumpless tal-iskart tal-Magħtab li l-Wasteserve tirreferi għalih bħala iċ-Ċentru Ambjentali tal-Magħtab.

It-tielet pendenza hi dwar l-inċineratur li hu ppjanat li jibda jopera sa mhux iktar tard mill-2025.

Il-Wasteserve teħtieġ l-art għal dan kollu li ser iwassal biex il-Magħtab ikun ikkonvertit permanentement fiċ-ċentru tal-iskart fil-gżejjer Maltin.

Il-Wasteserve, fuq is-sit elettroniku tagħha tiddeskrivi l-kumpless tal-Magħtab bħala ta’ daqs komparabbli mal-Belt Valletta, li hi mifruxa fuq 600,000 metru kwadru.

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, Aaron Farrugia, Ministru għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar, li hu politikament responsabbli għall-Wasteserve, spjega, waqt intervista mxandra fl-aħbarijiet, li l-estensjoni ippjanata għall-miżbla tal-Magħtab teħtieġ 145,000 metru kwadru ta’ art filwaqt li l-inċineratur propost u “faċilitajiet oħra” jirrikjedu 105,000 metru kwadru addizzjonali. Il-facilitajiet oħra hi referenza għall-wegħda elettorali tal-Partit Laburista biex jingħalaq l-impjant ta’ Sant Antnin għat-trattament tal-iskart.

Meta tgħodd din l-art kollha għall-proġetti tal-Wasteserve fil-Magħtab ifisser li d-daqs tal-kumpless għall-iskart ser jikber għal madwar 850,000 metru kwadru, meta l-proġetti jkunu kollha mplimentati. Dan ifisser li l-254,144 metru kwadru ta’ art, primarjament raba’, imsemmija fil-Gazzetta tal-Gvern tas-17 ta’ Diċembru 2019 tista’ isservi bl-eżatt. Xejn ma neħodha bi kbira, iżda, jekk il-Wasteserve, bħal Oliver Twist, tkun trid iktar.

Meta nfittxu fuq is-sit elettroniku tal-Awtorità għall-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) niskopru li l-permessi magħrufa bħala IPPC permits għall-miżbliet fil-Magħtab ilhom ftit li skadew. Dan ifisser li l-Wasteserve qed topera fi stat ta’ illegalità.

Dawn il-permessi imsejħa IPPC permits (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) jinħarġu mill- ERA skond kif tistabilixxi direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewropeja u dan wara li jkun hemm studji dettaljati dwar l-attività (f’dan il-kaz miżbla) u l-impatti tagħha. Skont is-sit elettroniku tal-ERA il-miżbla għal skart mhux perikoluż Ta’ Żwejra fil-kumpless tal-Magħtab qed topera fuq bażi ta’ permess li skada fl-24 ta’ Lulju 2018 (permess IP 0001/05). Min-naħa l-oħra l-miżbla għal skart mhux perikoluż tal-Għallis, ukoll fil-kumpless tal-Magħtab, qed topera fuq bażi ta’ permess li nħareġ f’Jannar 2013 u li suppost li skada fil-bidu tal-2018 (permess IP 0001/06).

Jekk il-Wasteserve mhiex kapaċi tosserva liġijiet bażiċi ambjentali, ħadd ma għandu jeħodha bi kbira li sezzjoni tal-pubbliku jimxu fuq l-eżempju tagħha.

Għaliex ir-regolatur ambjentali, l-ERA, tittollera dawn l-affarijiet? Ic-Chairman tal-ERA, l-Professor Victor Axiaq, għandu jispjega x’inhu jiġri. Messu ilu li rreżenja.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum :Il-Ħadd 23 ta’ Frar 2020

Wasteserve illegality: sort it out.

Farmers in Magħtab have been asked to contact Wasteserve by the end of this month in order to facilitate access to their land “for necessary studies with the intent of potential acquisition for public purposes”.

Notice No. 1261, published in The Malta Government Gazette of the 17 December 2019, lists eight plots of land in Magħtab which are being considered. This land has a total area of 254,144 square metres, slightly more than 226 tumoli. Most of it is currently in use as agricultural land, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances arising from the operation of landfills in the vicinity since 1975.

What does Wasteserve need this land for?

There are three pending major waste management issues. The landfills at Magħtab will be shortly filled to capacity. Undoubtedly this state of affairs has been reached earlier than anticipated due to the fact that too much waste is still going to landfill. Recycling is still at an insignificant level and the collection of organic waste as a separate stream is still in its infancy. Much still needs to be done in instilling awareness on the need to substantially reduce both the amount of waste generated as well as the portion of it going to landfill.

The Government will most probably also seek to implement its electoral pledge to close down the Sant Antnin Waste Treatment Plant. This is pledge number 27 in the Labour Party Electoral Manifesto for the 2017 general election and it, too, will most probably be directed towards the Magħtab waste complex, which Wasteserve refers to as the Magħtab Environment Complex.

The third pending issue is the so-called thermal facility, ie the incinerator, scheduled to be in operation by 2025.

Wasteserve needs land to address all three issues, in the process converting Magħtab permanently to the waste centre of the Maltese islands.

The Wasteserve website describes the Magħtab complex as being comparable in size to Valletta, being spread over an area in excess of 600,000 square metres.

Earlier Environment and Planning Minister Aaron Farrugia, politically responsible for Wasteserve, explained on television that the planned extension to the Magħtab landfill requires 145,000 square metres of land, while the proposed incinerator and other facilities would require an additional 105,000 square metres. The “other facilities” is an indirect reference to the Labour Party’s commitment to close down the Sant Antnin Waste Treatment Plant.

Adding up all this land required for the Wasteserve projects at Magħtab would bring the Waste Complex size to around 850,000 square metres when all the pending projects are implemented. This means that the proposed take up of 254,144 square metres of mostly agricultural land as declared in the Malta Government Gazette edition of the 17 December 2019 could be just enough space. Like Oliver Twist, Wasteserve will, however, most probably come back for more.

Perusal of the information available on the website of the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) indicates that the IPPC permit for the landfills at Magħtab expired quite some time ago, signifying that Wasteserve is operating in a state of illegality.

The IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) permits are issued by the ERA in terms of the provisions of the relative EU Directive after detailed studies on the operations and impacts of the proposed activity have been carried out or updated. According to the ERA website, the Ta’ Żwejra non-hazardous landfill within the Magħtab complex is operating on the basis of a permit which expired on the 24 July 2018 (permit IP 0001/05). On the other hand, the L-Għallis non-hazardous landfill, also within the Magħtab complex, operates on the basis of a permit which was issued way back in January 2013 and should have expired at the beginning of 2018 (permit IP 0001/06). Malta’s only landfill complex is thus operating without a valid permit at law.

If Wasteserve does not follow the provisions of basic environmental legislation, it is no surprise that a section of the population is inclined to follow its example.

Sort it out!

Why does the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA), the environment regulator, tolerate this state of affairs? The Chairman of ERA, Professor Victor Axiaq, owes an explanation. His resignation is long overdue.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 23 February 2020

Konsultazzjoni pubblika farsa

cpd-external-emergency-plan

Bdiet il-konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar il-permess operazzjonali tal-power station f’Delimara. Dan il-permess huwa magħruf bħala IPPC permit. Dan għax ikun ipproċessat skond dak li tistabilixxi d-Direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewropeja imsejħa Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

Bħala parti minn dan il-proċess, ħarġu għall-informazzjoni ta’ kulħadd, 293 rapport ta’ qisien li jvarjaw. Uħud qosra u oħajn donnhom ma jispiċċaw qatt għax fihom mijiet ta’ paġni. Uħud b’linġwaġġ li jinftiehem malajr u oħrajn li trid iddum tomgħod biex tifhem.

Il-konsultazzjoni pubblika oriġinalment kienet intenzjonata li ddum 30 ġurnata, il-minimu meħtieġ skond il-liġi. Wara diversi protesti, dan il-perjodu żdied għal 40 ġurnata. Dan xorta m’huwiex biżżejjed, għax is-sens komun jgħidlek li l-perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni għandu jkun twil skont kemm hemm informazzjoni xi tkun ikkunsidrata.

Meta t-tul ta’ żmien għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika ma jkunx proporzjonat mal-kwantità ta’ informazzjoni li teħtieġ illi tkun eżaminata, ma nistgħux ngħidu li din il-konsultazzjoni tkun qed issir bis-serjetà. Tkun qed issir għax bil-fors biex tonora l-kelma tal-liġi. Tkun konsultazzjoni taparsi.

Din hi s-sitwazzjoni li qed niffaċċjaw fil-każ tal-konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar l-impjant tal-power station ta’ Delimara. Ir-rapporti ppubblikati, fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom jeħtieġu li jkunu eżaminati bir-reqqa biex inkunu nistgħu nifhmu dak li qiegħed ikun propost fihom. Fil-parti l-kbira tal-każi, l-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi ilha x-xhur fil-pussess ta’ dawn ir-rapporti, inkluż uħud li forsi dehrilha li kellha tordna li jsirulhom xi tibdil jew inkella li kellhom jinkludu spjegazzjonijiet addizzjonali. L-awtorità taf kemm jirrikjedu żmien biex ikunu eżaminati dawn ir-rapporti, għax l-uffiċjali tagħha ilhom ix-xhur jeżaminawhom!

Hemm eċċezzjoni waħda għal dan kollu. Ir-rapport intitolat External Emergency Plan imħejji mid-Dipartiment tal-Protezzjoni Ċivili għandu parti minnu nieqsa. Fil-paġna 21 ta’ dan ir-rapport hemm it-titlu tas-sezzjoni : Section B Operational. Imbagħad fil-paġna immedjatament warajha hemm nota li tinfurmana illi l-kumplament tas-sezzjoni hi nieqsa minħabba illi kieku din l-informazzjoni kellha tkun ippubblikata, din il-pubblikazzjoni tkun ta’ theddida għas-siġurtà nazzjonali.

Din hi farsa. Hi nuqqas kbir ta’ serjetà. L-ewwel jimlewna bir-rapporti u ma jagħtuniex ħin biżżejjed biex naqrawhom, biex  mbagħad dwar dan ir-rapport jiċċensuraw ukoll il-kontenut.

Għalfejn poġġew dan ir-rapport għad-diskussjoni jekk il-parti l-iktar essenzjali għad-diskussjoni tneħħiet? F’soċjetà demokratika dan m’huwiex aċċettabbli. Bla ebda dubju hemm mod kif ikun possibli li tingħata informazzjoni biżżejjed u tkun tista’ issir konsultazzjoni pubblika bis-serjetà mingħajr ma issir ħsara lis-sigurtà nazzjonali.

Irridu naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw l-affarijiet għax huwa  meħtieġ serjetà  ħafna iktar minn hekk jekk irridu li l-konsultazzjoni pubblika ma tkunx farsa.

Ippubblikat fuq l-Illum : 30 t’Ottubru 2016

A farce in the making

external-emergency-plan-censored

 

Public consultation on the Delimara operational permit has commenced. This permit has to be issued in terms of the provisions of the EU Directive  on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

Feeding this public consultation exercise, last week the Environment and Resources Authority released 293 reports detailing information on different aspects of the Delimara power station. These reports are available on the authority’s website as well as at the offices of Marsaxlokk and Birżebbuġa local councils. They run into thousands of pages – varying from those which are very short to others which are substantial in length.

Originally, the public consultation exercise was planned to last 30 days – the minimum time  established by law. After a number of protests, this was increased to 40 days, which is still too short,  given the substantial amount of information that must be digested and analysed. Common sense should have dictated a much longer consultation period as the lack of sufficient time to examine the information released will bring into question the validity of the whole exercise.

The  reports require considerable time to be examined in order that their contents are understood in their proper perspective. Most of these reports were submitted to the Environment and Resources Authority many months ago and in the intervening period have been examined by officials of the Authority, who, in a number of cases, requested amendments or additions. These changes were identified by the Authority’s officers as a result of their examination of the said reports over a number of months.

It stands to reason that the Environment and Resources Authority is, on the basis of its own work,  fully aware that the real time required for  this public consultation would be in the region of four months and that anything less is insufficient.

There is, however, one exception. The report entitled “External Emergency Plan” drawn up by the Civil Protection Department, has been censored. A whole section has been removed and, as such, is not being subjected to the current public consultation exercise. Page 21 of the report contains the tile of the section : Section B Operational. On the following page we then have a note which informs us that “Information in the Operational Section (Section B) of this document is being withheld from publication on grounds on national security”.

This is a farce. The most important part of the document that requires dissemination and feedback has been withheld. This report should have been placed in the public domain in its entirety, as it is essential for those members of the public who are interested (or preoccupied) on the issue as they live too close for comfort to the Delimara power station. They  need the whole report in order to be informed and thus be in a position to give their reactions. Familiarity on the part of Marsaxlokk and Birżebbuġa residents with the Operational Section of the External Emergency Plan would eventually be put into use in the civil protection drills and simulation exercises which have to be organised by the Civil Protection Department on a regular basis at both Marsaxlokk and Birżebbuġa.

The Civil Protection Department leadership team should realise, even at this stage, that the local population must own the operational plans. These plans will not work if the local population is not aware of at least the basic contents of these plans.

The public consultation process is a basic and essential component of the workings of a democratic society. Tampering with the required information, or unnecessarily restricting the consultation period, will transform it into a farce.

It is for these reasons that the Delimara power station consultation process is a farce in the making!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 30 October 2016

Wara t-tejatrin ta’ Singapore …………….. lil hinn mill-partiġjaniżmu politiku

Delimara floating gas stirage terminal

 

Qed joqrob il-jum li fih it-tanker għall-ħażna tal-gass tal-power station jidħol u jitqiegħed fil-Port ta’ Marsaxlokk. Qed jgħidulna li dan ser ikun temporanju, jiġifieri għal ftit taż-żmien, sakemm jitlestew l-istudji dwar il-pipline tal-gass bejn Sqallija u Malta. Ovvjament trid iżżid ukoll iż-żmien biex il-pipeline jitqieghed f’qiegħ il-baħar inkluż ukoll il-perjodu tal-finanzjament, tendering u commissioning. Mhux xahar u tnejn.

Kemm ser ikun twil dan il-perjodu temporanju? Jiddependi mix-xogħol li sar diġà. Peró ma neħodiex bi kbira jekk dan iż-żmien ikun bejn 5 u 8 snin.

Sadanittant hemm il-ħtieġa li jkun ikkunsidrat il-permess operattiv tal-power station taħdem bil-gass f’Delimara. Dan il-permess ikun irid jissodisfa tlett tipi ta’ direttivi/regolamenti. Dawk dwar l-impjanti industrijali, dawk dwar l-impatti ambjentali (IPPC – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) u dawk dwar il-ħarsien minn inċidenti industrijali u l-impatti kemm ambjentali kif ukoll dawk ta’ protezzjoni ċivili (Direttivi ta’ Seveso).

Dan kollu jkun ikkunsidrat mill-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u Riżorsi flimkien ma’ awtoritajiet oħra, prinċipalment id-Dipartiment tal-Protezzjoni Ċivili u l-Awtorità għall-Ħarsien tas-Saħħa fuq il-Post tax-Xogħol. Imma ser ikun hemm ukoll bla dubju ħtieġa  ta’ eżami sewwa ta’ issues ta’ navigazzjoni minn Trasport Malta minħabba kemm it-tanker stazzjonarju (marbut mal-moll) fil-bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk kif ukoll minħabba li madwar 8 darbiet fis-sena ser jidħlu tankers bil-ħtiġijiet tal-gass skond kemm tkun qed tikkonsma gass il-Power Station ta’ Delimara.

Dawn huma kollha affarijiet li ġew diskussi f’ċerta dettall madwar sentejn ilu meta kien qed ikun diskuss il-permess ta’ żvilupp quddiem il-MEPA. Dakinnhar kien intqal li dawn kollha kienu affarijiet li riedu jkunu deċiżi iktar tard. Preċiżament issa hu dak il-mument, matul dawn il-ġimgħat u xhur li ġejjin.

Ser naraw matul il-ġimgħat li ġejjin dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ sigurtà huwa u jkun trasferit il-gass mit-tankers ġejjin u sejrin għal ġot-tanker stazzjonarju. Jekk hux veru li għal ċertu ħin il-port ikun jeħtieġlu illi jkun magħluq u kif dan (jekk minnu) ser jeffettwa l-operat tal Freeport u tas-sajjieda.

Irridu naraw kemm il-miżuri ta’ sigurtà fl-operazzjoni tal-power station huma f’posthom u xi drills ser ikunu meħtieġa (inkluż il-frekwenza tagħhom) biex ikun assigurat illi l-popolazzjoni residenzjali fil-viċinanzi tkun imħejjija għal kull eventwalità, anke jekk remota.

Wara l-inċidenti ta’ tmiem il-ġimgħa fil-ħruq tan-nar tal-festa ta’ Marsaxlokk bla dubju jridu jittieħdu prewkazzjonijiet ħafna iktar biex ikun assigurat li dawn it-tip ta’ inċidenti, jekk iseħħu, jinżammu l-bogħod kemm jista’ jkun mill-power station ta’ Delimara u l-ħażna tal-gass.

Dan kollu dwaru hemm l-obbligu li jkun hemm konsultazzjoni pubblika mar-residenti effettwati, dawk ta’ Marsaxlokk prinċipalment, imma probabbilment ukoll dawk ta’ Birżebbuġa.

L-operazzjoni tal-power station bil-gass bla dubju ser tnaqqas it-tniġġż tal-arja u b’mod ġenerali ittejjeb l-impatti ambjentali. Il-kostruzzjoni tal-pipe tal-gass eventwalment tnaqqas u tbiegħed il-perikli. Imma sa ma jasal dak il-jum, il-possibiltà tal-perikli, anke jekk remoti xorta qegħda wara l-bieb tagħna.

Lil hinn mill-partiġġjaniżmu politiku għandna l-obbligu li nassiguraw li l-affarijiet isiru sewwa. Biex dan isir għandna l-obbligu li neżaminaw kull pass li jsir. Għax b’hekk biss kulħadd joqgħod attent li jagħmel xogħolu sewwa.

ippubblikat fuq iNews : it-Tlieta 2 t’Awwissu 2016

The Quality of Life Account

Considering the Delimara power station extension in terms of the integrated pollution prevention and control application, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority asked Enemalta to submit an economic study on the different fuels that could be used. With a working language in euros, the study inevitably ends up considering whether preventing or reversing air quality degradation is, in fact, feasible due to the costs involved. I am being crude but that is basically what it entails.

It has been explained elsewhere that opting for gas oil instead of heavy fuel oil (HFO) will result in 37.75 per cent lower emissions of PM2.5 (particulate matter having up to 2.5 microns diameter).

Cubed Consultants Limited, author of the Delimara cost benefit analysis, recognises that gas oil has a better emissions performance than HFO. It arrives at this conclusion notwithstanding the incomplete information at its disposal, which information ignores a number of significant HFO emissions.

Cubed Consultants Limited concludes that there is an immediately apparent trade-off between low financial costs and high emission costs: they balance each other out! This may be so in the context of the economic philosophy adopted by Enemalta’s consultants but in the real world things work out differently.

The high emission costs are billed elsewhere. The health account foots part of the bill shouldering higher expenses for health care in general and respiratory ailments in particular. The quality of life account foots the rest of the bill. As a result of opting for lower fuel expenses the higher emissions produced will affect residents in the areas impacted. The varying impacts on their health will reduce their quality of life. Residents in neighbouring areas will also share the effects of the lower air quality.

One of the documents submitted to Mepa by the Marsaxlokk, Birżebbuġa and Żejtun local councils in reply to Enemalta’s IPPC submissions is authored by medical doctor Jason Bonnici and deals with the health effects of air pollution.

Dr Bonnici refers to studies carried out in Atlanta, US in 1996 both before and after the Olympic Games. As a result of measures taken to reduce air pollution during the three weeks of the Games, various indicators (ozone, NO2, carbon monoxide, PM10…) registered a substantial decrease. PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns diameter) for example, registered a 16 per cent decrease over the pre-Games levels.

As a result, Atlanta achieved a 40 per cent reduction of consultations in medical practices for asthma in children and a decline of between 11 and 19 per cent of asthma-related visits to emergency departments.

In Beijing, during the 2008 Olympic Games, similar efforts to reduce pollution resulted in a reduction of 31 per cent in PM2.5 and 35 per cent in PM10 concentrations. Results on the impacts of this achievement on health are not yet available.

Faced with this information, it is clear that the generation of air pollution through the use of HFO comes at a heavy health and environmental cost. No amount of economic benefit may balance out the reduction in the quality of life of those whose health is impaired. That is if they live on, as studies quoted by Dr Bonnici indicate an increased death rate in areas that experience the impact of high level PM2.5 and PM10 emissions.

Now, the PM2.5 and PM10 emissions measured by Mepa at Birżebbuġa and Marsaxlokk in April and May 2011 are already very high. Average PM2.5 daily readings measured 52.50μg/m3 at Marsaxlokk and 34.70μg/m3 at Birżebbuġa in contrast with the EU mandatory target value of 25μg/m3. On the other hand, average PM10 daily readings measured 54.10μg/m3 at Marsa­xlokk and 70μg/m3 at Birżebbuġa. The EU mandatory daily average is of 50μg/m3.

Faced with this reality, Mepa should feel in duty bound to ensure that the fuel option with the least impacts is selected. It is gas oil that pollutes the least and, hence, it presents the minimum of environmental and health impacts.

There is one further point that Edward Mallia has illustrated time and again. The cost to produce a unit of electricity at the Delimara extension making use of gas oil as a fuel is cheaper than what it presently costs at the Marsa power station using HFO. In the local councils’ documents presented to Mepa, Prof. Mallia and engineer Arthur Ciantar present the workings proving that it is not correct to state that using gas oil instead of HFO would lead to higher electricity bills.

Reducing health and environmental issues to prices and incremental costs or savings tends to lead to a situation of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing, particularly the value of human life. Euros are not a suitable tool to measure the value of human life, health, the quality of life and the environment.

The ball is now in Mepa’s court. In the next few weeks, we will be able to comprehend the extent to which human life, health, quality of life and environmental issues are factored in (if at all) when important decisions are taken by Mepa.

Published in The Times, October 29,  2011

Waste update : back to the drawing board

times_of_malta196x703

by Carmel Cacopardo

published on Saturday February 28, 2009

____________________________________________________________

The Solid Waste Management Strategy update published recently, identifies a zero waste scenario as a long-term aim. It refers to a number of studies commissioned and proceeds to a selective use of conclusions from the said studies, which are still under wraps.

A Situation Audit of the strategy was carried out in 2005. Yet, the only conclusion that has found its way into the proposed update is a statement on the practical non-existence of the interministerial committee set up to coordinate the strategy’s implementation across government. The full Situation Audit should see the light of day. The public has the right to be informed as to the manner in which targets were attained and the reasons as to why others were missed.

The update is incomplete; it postpones updating the strategy on hazardous waste, promising instead a Topic Paper in the future. The management of hazardous waste includes the implementation of the WEEE Directive (Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment), which is way behind schedule.

Producers and their representatives in terms of the WEEE Directive assume full responsibility for the waste generated by their products. Yet, the government, through the simultaneous application of the eco-contribution and the WEEE Directive, has placed them in a situation where they have to pay twice for the handling of electric and electronic waste: The payment of an eco-contribution and shouldering producer responsibility in terms of EU legislation. The result is that while, on paper, the WEEE Directive in Malta has been transposed, in practice its implementation is being obstructed. It is an area of responsibility that EU legislation assigns specifically to the private sector, yet the government is reluctant to lose a substantial chunk of eco-contribution revenues and is consequently applying the brakes.

The regulation of scrap yards does not feature in the update. They are required in order to recycle scrap metal. However, they should operate within a regulatory framework, in particular in conformity to the WEEE and the ELV (End of Life Vehicle) Directives. Recently, it was reported that, during testimony submitted in a planning appeal, concerning the enforcement order relative to the Ta’ Brolli scrap yard in Birzebbuga, it was revealed that part of its business originates from the custom of government departments and corporations!

Some scrap yards process scrap from disused refrigerators! Processing? They just crush them, as a result releasing refrigeration gases to air. These gases are CFCs (chloroflorocarbons), contributors to the depletion of the ozone layer. In a regulated environment in terms of the WEEE Directive, processing disused refrigerators for waste would include the careful collection of the CFCs as a first step. Instead, some Maltese scrap yards are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer in contrast to the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Malta has bound itself to observe and implement.

The proposal for an updated strategy encourages a policy favouring waste incineration. It proposes that the use of bio-digestion to convert waste to energy is complemented by a policy favouring incineration. Specifically, it proposes a waste to energy incinerator to be sited at Delimara next to the power station. This could also mean that on waste recovery sites (currently in operation or projected) the two technologies could co-exist.

Incineration is undoubtedly a waste management tool. In my opinion, it should however, only be used as the last option.

Relying on incineration to produce electricity would, on the plus side, reduce required landfill space and the fuel bill. It would still, however, contribute to the production of greenhouse gases and, hence, cannot be described as a source of clean energy. On the minus side, it negates the need to reduce waste generation and produces other possibly toxic emissions, which would vary dependent on the composition of the RDF (refuse derived fuel).

The regulation of these emissions is normally established through a permit issued by Mepa in terms of the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. The acceptability or otherwise of an incineration facility even as a tool of the last resort would in my view result from two points: The quality of emissions control imposed by Mepa through the conditions established in the IPPC permit, and the enforceability of these conditions.

If the manner in which the Marsa incinerator has operated in the past months is a reliable indicator on the workings of Mepa and Wasteserv, this is sufficient on its own to discard the incinerator option even as a tool of last resort.

These are just a few of the points indicating reasons as to why the proposed waste strategy update needs to go back to the drawing board. Together with the fact that a Strategic Environmental Assessment has not to date been carried out, this is clear evidence of its poor quality. Such a document cannot lead to a fruitful public discussion.