Enemalta illegally burned hazardous chemical

Enemalta was guilty of “serious shortcomings” in the way it illegally burned off hundreds of gallons of the hazardous chemical mercaptan in 2009.

This is the conclusion reached by an inquiry into the event, which found that Enemalta had not obtained the necessary environmental permits, had not kept adequate records and had failed to consult its own internal experts or the environmental authority throughout the incident.

But since waste management crimes are covered by a prescription period of two years, nobody involved is liable for conviction, with any potential disciplinary action left to the discretion of Enemalta’s board.

In a letter affixed to the front of the report, Enemalta chairman Louis Giordimaina said that while the board agreed with the inquiry’s findings, the breaches of regulations were carried out “under extreme pressure and ... in good faith”.

Mr Giordimaina, who only assumed the corporation’s hot seat last November, went on to admit that there was “an almost complete lack of paper trail of how certain important decisions had been taken and by whom”.

Allegations first surfaced last September that the mysterious foul smell that had enveloped much of Malta in September 2009 had been caused by Enemalta burning large quantities of mercaptan.

Mercaptan is a hazardous chemical unofficially termed “the smelliest substance in existence”. Although rare, inhaling large quantities can have serious repercussions on people’s health.

Led by engineer Philip Schembri, the board of inquiry appointed by Finance Minister Tonio Fenech has now retraced the series of events leading to the present day.

It exonerates Enemalta’s board of directors, then-chairman or minister of responsibility, saying that it appeared they were not made aware of the situation at any time.

But it raises significant questions about the corporation’s record-keeping, noting how vital documents, video footage and board meeting minutes were not available.

Although Enemalta officials told the inquiry that they had conducted gas detection readings on site, there is no record of any such readings.

The inquiry also found that there was “no tangible proof that Mepa (the Malta Environment and Planning Authority) was consulted” with regard to the emergency disposal of mercaptan.

It goes so far as to suggest Enemalta purposely concealed information from Mepa, noting how when the latter made enquiries as to the whereabouts of its supply of mercaptan, “EMC (Enemalta Corporation) ... persisted in withholding from Mepa the information on the extent of the disposals.”

In correspondence between the two entities dated November 2009, Mepa warned Enemalta that it was considering pursuing the matter in court. It never followed through with the threat. There is no direct allusion to any specific Enemalta employee’s responsibility, with the inquiry saying such a matter did not fall within its terms of reference.

The inquiry found that while Enemalta management at the time was faced with significant time and work pressures, “the longer-term serious implications ... should have been an overriding concern.”

Among other things, the inquiry suggested Enemalta employ suitably-qualified staff, ensured management was made aware of its legal obligations, provided more hazardous operations training and implemented a series of internal auditing and inventory reforms.