Private vs public interests in grit blasting

What was the chief reason behind the call from the Cospicua mayors who urged Palumbo to desist from using the harmful method in their operations at the shipyards – a facility they acquired by virtue of a 30-year lease from the Maltese government? It was simply, though significantly, Palumbo’s choice of using the grit blasting method regardless of its pernicious effects on citizens’ health and living environment.

Grit or abrasive blasting consists of copper particles being blasted onto ships in order to remove paint and rust attached to them, leaving instead a smooth and clean surface. The method is not necessarily illegal in itself but its residue definitely pollutes the surroundings and creates a health hazard particularly when the tiny specs of paint, metal and rust become airborne, badly affecting people and properties in close vicinity.

The negative effects of this method of operation were soon discovered by the communities of people living in the Cottonera area who instantly contacted their respective mayors to lodge their justified complaints.

Following a meeting I had with them, these dynamic mayors strongly repeated their constituents’ concerns and chagrin over the problematic situation affecting them, their families and their properties. As a result of that fruitful meeting I tabled the following parliamentary question on January 11, which I would reproduce verbatim for evident reasons:

“Could the Minister of Finance, the Economy and Investments indicate who will be held responsible for the damage wrought by the Palumbo Company in the properties of Cottonera residents through the use of grit-blasting? Since the shipyard, prior to its decision to use hydro-blasting, whenever it inflicted damage by employing the grit-blasting method, used to pay the victims, what can we expect today after the Palumbo Company admitted effecting damage as a consequence of its choice of the grit-blasting methodology?”

To which Minister Tonio Fenech, a week later, gave this reply: “I am informing the Hon. Member that the company in question is a private one and consequently this is a matter that has to be discussed privately between the same company and third parties”.

As a reaction to the mayors’ stance and the support they found in the House of Representatives, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority issued a stop notice ordering the Palumbo Shipyards to cease and desist. A Palumbo spokesman, however, announced that the company would be appealing the decision insisting that the operation in question was a vital part of its business. Indeed, this was only a repetition of what Palumbo had told Cospicua’s mayor, namely that they would hold him responsible if they incurred any financial losses due to his “interference”.

The company claimed it used various types of blasting methods, that is grit, sand and hydro blasting, but one could not predict what method should be used in each particular case. To this one feels obliged to say, No, sir, this is not good enough. If grit blasting is harmful to the citizens’ health and living environment, it should be discarded outright.

There is no doubt that my approach to the problem created by this private company is in consonance with that of the Cottonera residents who naturally forwarded their justified complaints to their mayors and to me. This is a classic case of private economic interests versus the public interest. As posited by Minister Fenech, Palumbo will look after the former. The residents of Cottonera are concerned with the latter. They will find their mayors and the undersigned, among others, right behind them. How is that for “third parties”, minister?