Six Enemalta firemen who supervised the illegal burning of the hazardous waste mercaptan in 2009 each received an “additions” payment added to their wages that year.

These mysterious additional payments varied from one fireman to another and were distinct from bonuses, allowances, overtime or any other listed payments given to Enemalta firemen.

None of the payments was quantified by an inquiry into the mercaptan burning incident. The inquiry also fails to explain why the payments were made, saying “such payments could have been made in relation to the disposal of mercaptan at Baħrija/Mġarr limits”.

The Finance Ministry and Enemalta Corporation were asked a series of questions about the payments by The Times. Enemalta avoided the questions by referring back to its reply attached to the report while the ministry did not reply.

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority also declined to answer questions put to it, saying it was seeking legal advice on the inquiry’s findings.

Published this week, the inquiry found Enemalta had burnt hundreds of gallons of mercaptan without the necessary permits in both Bengħajsa and the limits of Mġarr in 2009, stinking up large swathes of Malta in the process.

Mercaptan is the pungent chemical which gives gas its distinct odour. When inhaled or ingested in large doses, it can be toxic and lead to anything from a mild headache to organ damage and even possible respiratory paralysis.

The inquiry found “several shortcomings” in how the corporation handled the matter: Vital records were missing, press releases were “economical with the truth”, Enemalta’s chemical specialists were not consulted and the corporation hid details of the mercaptan disposal from the environmental regulator.

The inquiry was specifically precluded from looking into the conduct or responsibility of individuals, with its terms of reference limiting it to analysing the conduct of departments and entities involved. A ministry spokesman failed to explain why the inquiry was instructed not to look into individual responsibility.

Critical of it from the get-go, the Labour Party has been scathing in its criticism of the inquiry, terming it “a cover-up” and asking why Finance Minister Tonio Fenech was not asked to appear before the board of inquiry.

“Full-blown” inquiry leaves at least 10 unanswered questions

The Finance Ministry has described the inquiry as a “full-blown” one. But the final report leaves several questions unanswered. Here are some of them:

•Why was the board of inquiry specifically precluded from invest-igating individual responsibility?

•Who was responsible for taking air quality samples as the mercaptan burned? Enemalta claims samples were taken. Why are no records available?

•Enemalta’s board insisted all decisions were “taken in good faith”. Why then did the inquiry find that the corporation’s press releases were “economical with the truth”, that a report presented to the ministry last September “contains several factual mistakes and [is] missing important details”, and that Enemalta sought to hide information from Mepa after the burning occurred?

•The inquiry states that eight out of nine Enemalta firemen signed a declaration saying they were never coerced or encouraged to hide anything. What of the ninth fireman?

•What exactly were the “additions” payments made to the six firemen present during the burning of the mercaptan? Why doesn’t the inquiry specify or quantify them?

•The inquiry said it “was informed” that minutes of Enemalta directors’ meetings between 2007 and 2009 contained no reference to mercaptan. Was it given access to these minutes or given information by Enemalta directly?

•Who made the decision – considered mistaken by the inquiry – to entomb mercaptan into concrete? What was this decision based on?

•Why was Enemalta’s own lab section not consulted throughout the process?

•Who was the unnamed private contractor tasked with burning the mercaptan on Enemalta’s behalf?

•As early as November 2009, Mepa had sufficient grounds to suspect Enemalta had illegally burned mercaptan to threaten the corporation with legal action. Why was the matter never pursued further?