The challenge of engineered landfills

Dr Francis Zammit Dimech has recently challenged Labour spokesmen for the Environment to answer his two questions on landfills: Does Labour agree to having an engineered landfill? And if so, where should this be located?

I will answer these questions, but firstly, I would like to congratulate Dr Zammit Dimech for wisely choosing to be advised by the Labour Party on these matters which perturb him. Our reliable advice does not burden taxpayers, in contrast to his consultants` advice on which his ministry spends, albeit less wisely, more than half a million liri of taxpayers` money each year.

Labour agrees that Malta needs an engineered landfill because you cannot do without them, although there are many dangers associated with them if work is not carried out professionally.

Presumably, Dr Zammit Dimech does not know this, which is why we are totally opposed to the Project Description Statement (PDS) for a new landfill issued recently by the Works Division of the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure.

This PDS has many technical mistakes and is based on incoherent planning. We also disagree for technical reasons with the list of localities selected for the new landfill. The PDS identifies Ghallis and Benghajsa in the final selection of localities.

The PDS is a shocking example of lack of planning, bad design and violations of EU and international standards, which will ultimately lead to the failure of the proposed landfills.

Such a project will never solicit financial support from the EU, even though Dr Zammit Dimech has already started boasting about presumed EU funding for his waste project!

Dr Zammit Dimech makes a useful suggestion that should compensate for the confused ideas on landfills emanating from his ministry. He tells us "that Mr Mizzi should spend his time constructively talking to people about what an engineered landfill is all about" (The Sunday Times, April 28).

Rather than limit myself only to telling the public what an engineered landfill is about, I will refer to Dr Zammit Dimech`s PDS for a new landfill as an example of what an engineered landfill should not be like.

Engineered landfills rely on synthetic liners and a drainage system intended to contain and manage liquids and gases emitted from waste. Despite precautions, 80 per cent of landfills in the United States are known to be polluting ground water, even though US standards for hazardous landfills are better than those of the EU.

A new landfill elicits three fundamental questions:

¤ What type of waste should be disposed of in the new landfill?

¤ Which is the best place to locate a landfill?

¤ And, how should this landfill be constructed to function safely?

Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry has failed to address these questions in an acceptable manner. His proposed landfill, as presented in the PDS, will put this country at a very high risk of contamination, which endangers the present and future generations.

The PDS proposes two landfills, one for non-hazardous waste and another for hazardous waste. However, it does not make sense to make haste in building new landfills and at the same time procrastinate in introducing waste separation and recycling.

The proposal for two landfills is useless unless Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry does something to encourage or enforce waste separation in this country. What is the use of having two separate landfills receiving different waste, if waste is not separated at all or inadequately?

The PDS also insists that the non-hazardous and the hazardous landfills should be located next to each other. Since Government has not introduced separation at source, will this mean that waste separation will have to be carried out at the landfill side itself?

This will be very unpracticed and reflects incompetent planning. The hazardous and non-hazardous landfills should be located away from each other, the former in a safer place.

The introduction of waste separation at source requires a change in people`s habits which cannot be achieved overnight in 2004, when the landfills are supposed to start operating.

For example, Germany has a problem of domestic waste separation with its Mediterranean immigrants. Their old habits (similar to ours) make them unco-operative in waste separation schemes, albeit they have been for a long time part of German society, which separates waste scrupulously.

All this shows that Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry has learnt nothing from its blundering policies, which encouraged the mixing of different waste streams in the Maghtab landfill. Such mistaken policies have discouraged waste separation, when this should have been the first step in the Government`s waste management agenda.

The second question on many people`s mind is where to locate a non-hazardous and a hazardous landfill? Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry decided to adopt a political rather than a technical strategy for the siting of the new engineered landfill. This is confirmed by the fact that his ministry chose to ignore the established American and EU procedures on the siting of new landfills.

These procedures require that a geological and hydrogeological report on the proposed site is first submitted. Instead, the government conveniently chose to use only the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process to verify the suitability of the two pre-selected sites (Ghallis and Benghajsa) because it knows that the EIA process can be easily manipulated by high-ranking PA officials.

Such manipulation will give Government what it wants and also rewards high-ranking PA officials. Last year we had such a case, when an official was commended by the PA after having admitted to secretly colluding with the developers on the selection of what should have been `independent` consultants!

While the manipulation of the EIA process will serve to cover up the mistake of locating the landfill at Benghajsa and/or Ghallis, it cannot cover up for the bad landfill design presented by Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry in its PDS.

The ministry seems to be unaware that the design of a hazardous landfill requires a specially trained person who is conversant with a myriad of international standards on landfills and good geotechnical practice.

However, Dr Zammit Dimech did the unthinkable. His ministry`s PDS presents a design for a hazardous landfill made by an architect who evidently does not have any technical training in landfill design!

I am advised that the design presented by Dr Zammit Dimech`s ministry is a minefield of technical mistakes. It is so far removed from the standard of care and good practice in landfill design that if the ministry`s design were to be implemented, the landfill will very shortly undergo massive failure and uncontrolled leakage of hazardous liquids!

How can the people of Birzebbuga or Naxxar sleep peacefully at night when they know that Government proposes to build a hazardous landfill designed by someone who knows nothing about landfills next to their towns? This is the zenith of the PN`s incompetence and irresponsibility.

Dr Zammit Dimech was right in asking Labour his questions on landfills rather then revert to his advisors who have led this country to the environmental catastrophe we are living in.

Labour`s wisdom comes from our policy that no one is dispensable (hadd m`hu ghar-rimi). This strengthens us because it serves to attract the best ideas and advisers from our nation, while the PN shrivels under the weight of its own exclusive blundering clique who prostrate to the EU.

Dr Zammit Dimech may have many questions to ask on land filling, but the time for questions is now over. People want answers, and they know that Labour has the right solutions to implement when in government.