The European Commission has thrown out a case looking into objections against the Sant’Antnin Recycling Plant in Marsascala, sources in Brussels informed The Malta Independent yesterday.

Sources yesterday confirmed the Commission has closed Case 2004/5160 investigating objections regarding the Sant’Antnin Recycling Plant as it did not identify any breach of EU legislation connected with the case in question.

The decision to dismiss the complaints filed by objectors was confirmed by the College of Commissioners on 11 December, and the case has now been officially dropped.

The complaint had been formally filed by the Front Kontra l-Impjant Ghar-Riciklagg Propost (Front Against the Proposed Recycling Plant) back in January, after having met with EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas the month before presenting a dossier of its objections.

The Front, which had put up a fierce battle at Malta Environment and Planning Authority public consultation meetings and also against MEPA’s eventual approval of the plans, represents residents of Marsascala, Zejtun and Zabbar objecting to the renovation and targeted increased capacity of the new plant.

Construction works at the plant had begun in April and the first phase is expected to be completed shortly. Once completed, the plant will be able to handle 36,000 tonnes of recyclable waste per year brought from Malta’s bring-in sites and another 35,000 tonnes of municipal waste, much of which is expected to be used for the creation of green energy.

The plant, which had first been commissioned in the early 1990s, is being modernised through a total investment of Lm9.7 million (e22.6 million) – 70 per cent of which was co-funded under the EU’s Cohesion Fund programme for Malta for 2004-2006.

The completed renovation is to include a materials recycling facility (MRF) for sorting separately collected recyclables such as glass, paper, metals and plastics; a mechanical treatment plant (MTP) where unsorted and source separated household waste would be received and sorted; a Digestion Plant to treat source separated biodegradable waste and mechanically sorted biodegradable waste so as to produce biogas while some of the digested material would be stabilised into compost.

The biogas extracted from waste on site is to be used to generate green electricity to provide heat for the plant’s operations and for export.

The Commission’s final decision had, more or less, been something of a foregone conclusion with Commissioner Dimas this Summer having indicated the Commission’s stance on the development.

He had commented, “The Commission has assessed the information provided concerning the modernisation of Sant’Antnin waste recycling plant with reference to compliance with requirements under Community environmental legislation. For the time being and on the basis of the information available to the Commission, the Commission concludes that it is not possible to identify a violation of Community law.

“With regard to the choice of location of individual projects in member states and the detailed arrangements for consulting the public, these are issues under the exclusive competence of the competent national authorities and the Commission does not have powers to intervene.

“The Environment Impact Assessment Directive requires that certain public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are assessed before development consent can be granted. Under Article 5(3) of the directive, where an environmental impact assessment is undertaken for a project, the developer of the project shall provide ‘an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects’.

“The reference to ‘alternatives’ is a general one, implying that a range of alternatives, including alternative processes or technical solutions, as well as geographical alternatives, may be considered. In the case in question, the project is for the extension and modernisation of an existing waste recycling site, therefore no alternative geographical site in effect exists.”