The outline application for the construction of a waste to energy plant at the Magħtab landfill has been recommended for approval, and is set to go before the Planning Authority’s board on Thursday.

The flagship waste management project aims to handle and incinerate circa 350 to 400 tonnes per day, equivalent to 120,000 tonnes annually, of Refuse Derived Fuels and combustible rejects which would then have an output of around 20 to 25 MWe.

Some of this electricity will be used internally in the plant, while the majority will be exported to the national grid. 

The project intends to reduce Malta’s reliance on landfilling and ultimately aims to turn waste into a potential resource.

The proposed facility will consist of a number of elements such as a waste acceptance hall and associated buffer storage; a moving grate incinerator plant; a waste drying area using heat exchanger; an emissions handling plant; an emissions stack; water reservoirs; an electricity substation; and connections to the sea for water cooling.

A building will be constructed at the seashore to house the pumproom.

The site in question occupies an area of circa 34,000 square metres and is outside the development zone (ODZ).  It is largely on the site of the current Magħtab landfill, but also includes taking up elements of agricultural land.

The building itself will be 39 metres high, and have a flue rising 80 metres.  The project’s chimney stack was deemed an unavoidable necessity even if it is the most visible element of the plant. The case officer’s report reads that the orientation of the building was changed in order to reduce the visual impact of the chimney.

Sinking the plant into the site was considered, the case officer says, but it was deemed not manageable due to further land uptake, ramp space required for heavy vehicles to access the plant, and the “very large” amounts of inert waste which would be generated by excavations.

The Environment and Resources Authority, following an Environmental Impact Assessment, concluded that “there is no objection to the proposal subject to the implementation of stringent mitigation measures and pre-emptive safeguards throughout both construction and operation phases of the proposed development.”

The EIA report identified a number of residual impacts on agricultural land, geology and geomorphology, landscape character and visual amenity, as well as others, the significance of which depends largely on the thorough implementation of pre-emptive safeguards, construction and operational mitigation measures.

The same EIA concluded that the visual intrusion of the proposed project is considered to be “major” despite the mitigation measures proposed at the design stage, but noted that on the other hand the baseline is already dominated by the massive landfill which serves as a backdrop.

The EIA Report concluded that “a minor adverse residual impact following mitigation measures is envisaged on air quality during construction due to dust emissions; and a negligible residual impact is envisaged due to atmospheric emission during operation as long as effective emission suppression equipment is in place.”

The ERA said that even though it was clear that certain impact such as habitat loss, removal of trees, and demolition of rural structures would not be averted, the project is still better than increased landfilling and therefore has a “net environmental benefit.”

It is in view of this that the ERA said it does not object to the proposal.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage meanwhile said that the archaeological features that have emerged until now and their immediate context, whilst interesting, are not considered significant enough to merit preservation in situ.

Therefore, it found no objection in principle to the proposed development subject only to archaeological monitoring conditions.

An outline development permission, which is what WasteServ is applying for, is an approval in principle of the full development subject to a number of reserved matters which would need to be included in a full development permit application, which would have to be filed by the applicant anyway.

 An outline development permit would override any future policy which might conflict with the project.

A number of objections were filed against the project, particularly over concerns for the health and wellbeing of people who live in the area, about potentially hazardous emissions which may come out of the plant, and about the possible impact of the incinerators cooling system – which would discharge warm water into the sea – on the marine environment.

The local councils of Naxxar, Għargħur and Swieqi all filed objections, as did NGOs Moviment Graffitti, Ramblers Association, Magħtab Residents Association, Friends of the Earth, and Din L-Art Helwa.

Għaqda Bdiewa Attivi meanwhile said that “the agricultural sector is suffering one serious blow after the other in terms of the take-up of its land – the prime resource for it to continue functioning. Several private and public projects have caused the destruction of tens of thousands of metres squared of agricultural land.”

This project would again give rise to the loss of a very significant area of arable land and run counter to Malta’s National Agricultural Policy which places the valorisation of farmland for its agricultural value and of non-arable land for its ecological, scenic and eco-touristic potential as one of its major operational objectives, the group said.

However, the PA’s case officer has recommended that the outline development permit be granted by the PA’s board.

A decision on the project will be taken by the board in a sitting on Thursday.