Pharmaceuticals company Sterling Chemical Malta Ltd has never been warned for any omissions relating to safety or atmospheric emissions, it told The Sunday Times of Malta in a letter rebutting a report some days ago.
Citing its “right of reply” under the press law, the company, situated in Ħal Far, said: “Since its establishment in 2013, Sterling Chemical Malta has always cooperated with all the local authorities and complied with the laws of the country to the letter. As a pharmaceutical company it has achieved recognition for excellence of quality in its relative business sector.
“Over the years the company has achieved excellent results and serious milestones have been reached, such as the MMA and FDA certifications to mention a few. These concomitantly brought about an extraordinarily fast growth in terms of hired personnel, boasting a complement of almost 90 employees in 2018 (in 2013 the number of employees was less than 10).
The factory in Ħal Far.“All of this is thanks to the technologies implemented in the company’s operating processes, including the fully automated environmentally compliant production lines.
“The state-of-the-art manufacturing plant was built in full compliance with the authorities’ requirements and the company, contrary to what was carried in your article, has never been warned for any omissions relating to safety or atmospheric emissions, the latter of which are inspected on a half-yearly basis.”
Sterling said it had always submitted its environmental annual report as requested by the authorities and was keen to set the record straight “with respect to several inaccuracies or factually incorrect reportage as contained in the newspaper article that appeared on December 12.”
The permit referred to was approved and no breach of the conditions of the permit was ever committed
In respect to the part of the report which said the company has been using an area outside of the boundary allowed by its operational permit to dispose of hazardous material, the company said no application was made to the Planning Authority for the use of this area as a waste storage site, as this was considered a temporary measure that would not qualify as a DNO but would require EIA clearance.
“It was however communicated to Sterling and the EIA co-ordinator to update the IPPC application.”
The Environment and Resources Authority, it said, “is not monitoring a situation but rather this is a cooperation due to the fact that Sterling has always wanted to act in respect of law and authorities”.
Last week, this newspaper reported that in April, the IPPC unit within ERA noted that the factory was operating a newly-built ‘temporary’ waste area outside of the permitted site boundary in breach of IPPC permit conditions. Sterling said “the permit referred to was approved and no breach of the conditions of the permit was ever committed”.
Hazardous waste, it added, was allowed to be stored by ERA in terms of the permit and the newly built structure conforms to ERA requirements.
In response to the report of a missed September deadline for a sump with a locked valve to be installed on a rainwater pipe, in response to an ERA groundwater risk assessment report, Sterling said the deadline for additional preventions was November 23 and was respected. It also said the inspection was focused on emissions points and liquid storage conditions; and that the already agreed proposal for sump and valve was discussed on place, while showing which was the drain in object.
With regard to the statement that the company has now been given until the end of the year to ensure that only clean rainwater can ever be discharged into the outside environment from its chemical plant, Sterling said operations are carried out in contained areas, “as it’s going to be any [sic] new installation” and that it “never received any ultimatum in respect of compliance with ERA requirements”.
It does not have any uncontrolled mutagenic liquid hazardous waste and the ERA is satisfied that it has sufficient controls for its waste management, Sterling added.
As to storage area compliance with EU directive and ERA requirements, it said only a sump is to be built “as a tertiary containment from outside environment”.