One of the main reasons behind the public consultation meeting organised by Mepa that discussed the Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) of the new power plant at Delimara was to reassure the public regarding possible health hazards from the proposed plant.
Unfortunately, from where I stand as a paediatrician and as a resident, the EIA report presented by Mepa does little to reassure me.
Data regarding emissions on which the EIA relies is unguaranteed data forwarded by BWSC - the firm awarded the tender. Mepa has not considered verifying this data by studying established plants overseas.
The filters on which the plant heavily relies to bring emissions within EU-acceptable limits are prototype filters, never used before. However, BWSC hopes it will have the opportunity to try them somewhere else before using them at the Delimara plant.
The plant chosen by Enemalta operates on heavy fuel oil and is subject to an increased rate of wear and tear, resulting in frequent faults and a sharp drop in efficiency with time. It is obvious that as efficiency drops, emissions will increase. For the EIA to be credible, a model of how the emissions will increase with the lifetime of the plant needs to be taken into consideration. How will Enemalta deal with increased emissions?
The EIA does not take into account the carcinogenic heavy metals present in heavy fuel oil (HFO). Studies of their accumulation in local flora and fauna (including farmed tuna) and their levels in the fly ash are necessary. The permit must also request the continuous monitoring of these levels throughout the plant's lifetime.
The EIA assumes the plant will be powered by heavy fuel oil containing one per cent sulphur. HFO, however, varies a lot in its sulphur content and Enemalta, hard-pressed for cash, may be forced to buy HFO of inferior quality, containing higher levels of sulphur. A future permit should specify the sulphur content of HFO used, or preferably, as the EIA itself suggested, diesel should be used.
Given that the plant at Delimara is operating outside the EU emission limits as decreed in a recent European Court judgment, why are we even considering expanding the plant before the present plant is rendered compliant?
Given all the above uncertainties, an EIA based on assumptions, data provided by interested parties, untried prototypes and the appalling record Enemalta has in managing its plants, within the context of EU plans to cut down further on emissions, it is highly likely that in the near future we will end up paying hefty fines while intoxicating our children by burning a fuel which other developed countries are steering away from.