In early September 2013, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar brought to Mepa’s attention that a cement silo was being built without a relevant permit two metres away from Kordin Grain Terminal grain conveyor belt, and raised concerns regarding the health risks through contamination of grain by cement. We asked if any enforcement was being taken.

In a mail dated 9th October, copied to both Mepa’s CEO and chairman, Perit Alex Borg, Enforcement Manager, states: “I reiterate that the CEO office a year back had informed operator that the cement silo in the Port did not require a planning permission, but that this summer it was clarified by same office that an Environmental Permit was required for its operations. As of this afternoon, the silo is still being constructed and is definitely not in operation. There is hence nothing more to add from an enforcement perspective.”

For the reader’s information we would like to point out that environment permit applications and risk assessments are required to be done before the start of the development, in order to establish that there will be no negative environmental effects.

We find it disconcerting that, not only was Stafrace’s letter not questioned but, irrespective of the legal requirements the silo was allowed to reach completion.

Perit Borg’s reasoning as quoted above, especially considering the health risks involved, causes us concern as does his glib conclusion: “There is hence nothing more to add from an enforcement perspective”.

We were directed to the Environmental Health Directorate to find that concerned with the risk of food contamination by a toxic substance ordered that both the cement silo owners and the rain importers present a risk assessment.

When researching the Environment and Development Planning Act (Cap 540), we read that no development can be allowed without presenting a Planning Application and that said application should be open to public representation and consultation.

“67. (1) Subject to the provisions of this article and to the following provisions of this Part, no development shall be carried out except with development permission.

(2) For the purposes of this article, and, unless the context otherwise required, for all other purposes in this Act, ‘development’ means the carrying out of building, engineering, quarrying, mining or other operations for the construction, demolition or alterations in, on, over, or under any land or the sea, the placing of advertisements, or the making of any material change in use of land or building other than:”

It crystallizes the illegality of this cement silo. Our claim is substantiated by the fact that, when going through various correspondences and meetings held with Mepa, we did not find, nor has Mepa given any evidence that this process was legitimate.

On 29th January, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar submitted to Mepa a formal complaint to the effect that UC Ltd built a silo on Laboratory Wharf without any planning permissions as legislated in article 67. (1)., and that, in view that this development is contrary to the law the Enforcement Department is duty bound to immediately take steps for direct action.

This complaint is to date unacknowledged by the present CEO, chairman, as well as any Mepa management copied.

We highlighted both the illegalities as well as the results of two Environmental Health Directorate instigated Risk Assessments to Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Dr Michael Farrugia,

The Risks Assessment co-authored by Dr Julian Mamo MD, PhD, and Dr John Paul Cauchi MD, MSc, on behalf of Kordin Grain Terminal, had very grave reservations and concerns on the serious risk to the public, especially children, of poisoning of the grain by even minute amounts of cement. Their conclusions are that it is not an acceptable risk, irrespective of how safe the silo is.

The second Risk Assessment authored by Dr Cali-Corleo MD MSc, for UC Ltd states in conclusion that, “It is unlikely that this silo operation will be completely free from all fugitive emissions and so the possibility that the grain being handled nearby will be subject to a level of contamination from cement dust remains present even following the application of best practices.”

We got two answers from Doctor Farrugia, the first in response to our original complaint: “The silo in question has a clearance that had been issued by the previous CEO’s office. The same applicant has been informed that they require an environmental permit as per Cap 504.”

The second responded to a second letter in which we highlighted the above health risk assessment conclusions: “I have directed you to put questions to the relevant persons involved, to whom you have not yet done so. Please keep me updated with their replies.”

With all the investigative power and personnel within Mepa, the person responsible for Mepa directs an NGO to investigate and refer back to him our findings doing what Mepa fears to do. Or is it possible that once more Mepa is more worried about a costly legal suit than the health of the community.

Antonio Anastasi

Manager

 Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar