Incinerating evidence

When I questioned the way in which the St Luke's Hospital incinerator issue is being managed or rather mismanaged by the government, I thought it was another in the series of government blunders that, unfortunately, we have now grown accustomed to.

I was wrong. Deeper investigations of this case uncovered a can of worms.

Last week I asked if government authorities believe that the said incinerator conforms to the relevant European Union directives protecting the environment and public health. The multitude of pertinent authorities which have mushroomed in this country remained curiously mum.

Nevertheless, I found my answer in a report of the Working Group on the Treatment of Clinical Waste, dated March 2006, which the government has to date chosen to keep locked up in its drawers.

In page 2 of this report I found a cold, straightforward analysis which is a far cry from the political statements we were being fed:

"Presently, Malta does not have any authorised facilities for the treatment of clinical waste. Healthcare waste from St Luke's Hospital is currently being incinerated in an on-site incinerator that does not comply with EU or national legislation".

I was further illuminated on page 6 when I read that "clinical waste is still being incinerated at excessively low temperatures at St Luke's Hospital contrary to the requirements of the EU Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (something the government never mentioned in public) transposed through local LN336/01 and with obvious negative environmental and public perception implications".

There you go.

Then again, until just a few weeks ago we were being given the impression that a solution, in the form of a new incinerator at Mater Dei Hospital, was in the offing and would be implemented very soon. This report busts this myth, and states:

"Procedural obstacles at the pre-qualification stage once again delayed procedures which now also face the problem that installation of new equipment at Mater Dei Hospital can only take place after the hospital migration process, i.e. at the earliest in 2008 (there goes a new date for the new hospital)" (page 6).

This obviously explains the silence and the pathetic buck-passing game played between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for the Environment.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In 2005, Wasteserv decided to spend Lm4 million from the final Italian protocol to procure an incinerator for the abattoir. An additional Lm775,000 are now being forked out for what looks like a very early upgrade to the system.

A year after spending this hefty sum, it dawned on the government that the investment simply would not have made sense if it is limited solely to the incineration of abattoir waste.

The Ministry of Finance was called in only after Wasteserv realised this and after it had made the capital expenditure. So much for careful planning! The Finance people got hold of a copy of the Lm4 million contract with the Italian company, Barbieri & Tarozzi, from which the incinerator was bought only after asking for it "over and over again" (Ministry of Finance unpublished internal memo, February 2006).

The Finance Ministry noted that "The new abattoir incinerator requires exorbitant running costs" and that if it is used only for abattoir waste, as originally planned, "the government will be incurring about Lm11.432 million over a five-year period if the current subsidised rates to the agricultural industry do not change".

At this point, the obvious solution offered was that all waste, including clinical waste, should be directed to one incinerator. Nevertheless, the previous decisions on the procurement of the abattoir incinerator were taken oblivious of this fact. Furthermore, the commissioning of another incinerator at either St Luke's or Mater Dei came to a halt because of circumstances independent of this development. This time round they just managed to get lucky. One more time: so much for careful planning!

To add insult to injury, Wasteserv did not seem to impress anyone with the business plan it produced to justify spending an additional Lm775,000 to upgrade the new Lm4 million incinerator to handle all waste. In the same memorandum quoted earlier, the Finance Ministry noted that "The volume of industrial waste quoted in the first report (by Wasteserv) differs from that of the business plan (also submitted by Wasteserv)".

In its business plan, Wasteserv is also proposing the imposition of a new fee for incineration to be paid by industry. I will not question the concept but would rather look into the "consultative" and "scientific" manner in which the indicative tariffs were decided:

"When asked by FMMU (Finance Ministry) whether Wasteserv consulted the industry, one of the engineers stated that she had spoken to a few. The business plan does not give any information on what the market is prepared to pay and apparently no discussions have been carried out with the industry in order to get the feel of what these enterprises will be willing to pay to have this hazardous waste disposed in Malta as opposed to other options."

Spoken to a few? Is this a new concept of consultation?

The original business plan, which does not even take adequately into account the rising fuel costs, would make hilarious reading if it were not such a tragic showpiece of the way in which decisions are taken in this country.

These are the same people trusted with the Sant'Antnin project, the Xewkija waste transfer station and a bunch of other environment-related projects.

If their credibility could have sunk any lower, it just did!

If the Public Accounts Committee thought VOM was interesting, they could just try probing this one.

Mr Muscat is a Labour member of the European Parliament.

www.josephmuscat.com