Cleaning up our act in the EU

Now that Malta's place in the European Union is secure, it is important that we continue to expand the discussion on ways in which we can best deal with what is possibly the major challenge facing our country - the rehabilitation and future protection of our environment.

Our future standard of living will almost certainly continue to depend heavily on income from the cornerstone of our economy, tourism. The success of the tourist industry will in turn depend on whether or not we are successful in implementing an effective plan for sustainable development. Investing in the environment is an investment in the economy as a whole.

Clean air, clean sea, and clean land - these three parameters continue to climb the list of priorities of prospective tourists when it comes to comparing the pros and cons of various, competing Mediterranean holiday resorts. The three objectives of clean air, clean sea, and clean land are most certainly attainable in Malta, particularly within the infrastructure of the EU.

However, rather than aiming to achieve basic compliance with EU standards on industrial activities, waste management and the environment, we should aim for a level where Malta can be used as a model for European sustainable development. Malta's size makes it ideal 'pilot plant' material for the implementation of new technologies.

Maghtab is a tragic monument to our failure to tackle the environmental difficulties associated with sustaining one of the world's most concentrated populations. The use of reverse osmosis technology to convert seawater to potable (drinking) water is an excellent example of how technology can be utilised to sustain what would otherwise be an unsustainable population. Sadly, the satisfaction which we might derive from seeing reverse osmosis technology applied on such a scale should be tempered by the knowledge that the original source of our drinking water (the sea) is also the dumping ground for our sewage and industrial effluent.

The rehabilitation of our environment and the strategy for future protection of our air, sea and land is an overwhelming concern for many of us. Malta is a high-risk case within Europe. We are a country of limited resources, with a concentrated population which relies on the sea for supplies of potable water.

Our key source of revenue is tourism, and yet we are prepared to take risks, cut corners, or turn a blind eye to environmentally unacceptable practices. How then can we tackle the problems we face? What are the areas that need to be prioritised; how are the different areas linked; and what sort of strategy should be put in place to protect our environment and ultimately our health and our quality of life?

A national strategy must first explore the links between the various problem areas and identify the opportunities inherent in an integrated waste management system.

Recent articles in The Times on the pros and cons of incineration versus landfill highlight the different options available, and the parameters used in selecting the most appropriate technologies for Malta. This healthy debate is important in keeping the issue of environmental protection and waste management in the spotlight. Before going directly into the pros and cons of incineration, it is important firstly to emphasise that any discussion of waste management must be viewed in the wider context, and not as isolated pieces of an un-connected puzzle.

The question 'what is the best method of dealing with solid waste generated in Malta' cannot be fully addressed, and conclusions cannot be drawn, without incorporating other connected issues. The concepts of Integrated Waste and Waste Water Management (IWWWM) should be the framework of any plans to deal with the individual elements associated with waste-generation and processing. The principles of IWWWM might be defined as: protect, recover, reclaim, improve.

An integrated system would involve a coordinated strategy for dealing with:

- Old solid waste (old or existing landfills)
- Future generated solid waste
- Waste water.

Solid waste (both future generated, and currently existing in landfills) can be separated into three basic categories, and processed accordingly:

- Recyclable (for example, glass and metals)
- Construction debris (material for possible land reclamation)
- Organic materials, including plastics (used for incineration).

During any landfill clean-up phase, all leachate (liquid waste from landfills) would be prevented from contaminating water sources (including the sea) and could be treated in a modular, mobile wastewater treatment unit to ensure that no secondary pollution occurs. The same unit could be used for all landfill sites.

Waste water can also be separated into three basic categories

- Industrial wastewater
- Municipal wastewater
- Marine wastewater.

Both industrial and municipal wastewater can be effectively processed by the application of standard wastewater technology, such as the activated sludge process. Excess sludge could be used for fertiliser or for fluid-bed incinerator temperature control.

Marine wastewater requires separate treatment, possibly using a small anaerobic digestion unit installed at the main wastewater treatment plant.

Wastewater treatment plants could be sized for the immediate population but must be modulised to cope with tourism fluctuations. Specialised industrial wastewater treatment plants could be installed to serve the industrial zones or incorporated into the municipal plants. The treated water might then be used for irrigation. All restaurants should be equipped with a grease-trap system and the collected material could then be destroyed in a bio-digestor at the main wastewater treatment plant, or possibly converted to bio-diesel.

Regarding incineration, and with reference to the various articles in The Times on this subject, it is important to clarify that incineration is an acceptable option only if the selected technology ensures efficient combustion (in fact, the concept of combustion efficiency is an important element of overall national air quality management). Dioxin emissions are not an inevitable consequence of waste incineration. Efficient combustion can be achieved by maintaining constantly high incineration temperatures (through the use of fluid-bed technology for example). Furthermore, the flue gases (emissions) from the incinerator can be suitably scrubbed of all possible contaminants before their release into the environment.

The use of incineration also gives rise to the possibility of power production. This issue of "waste-to-energy" should be considered in parallel to other related concepts, such as: energy efficiency, solar power, wind turbines, and the use of seawater (our largest natural resource) as a primary cooling medium for large air-conditioning, chilling and refrigeration units. These are all mechanism for limiting fossil fuel combustion in our carbon-constrained world.

A suitable choice for utilising the power generated by a waste-to-energy plant in Malta might be in the production of potable water. In this scenario, the warmed sea-water exiting the cooling system of the waste-to-energy power plant would supply a flash desalination unit to produce high-quality potable water.

The ash produced in an incineration plant (and in our national power-generating installations) consists of two main categories:

- Bottom ash
- Fly ash

Elsewhere in Europe, bottom ash is used in road foundation construction. Fly ash can be treated (made inert), pelletised and eventually coated to produce high-drainage road construction foundations.

The reclaimed land from the old landfills might be ideal locations for collection sites for the various categories of waste and for subsequent transportation to the various points of further processing.

A reference point for the evolution of the national plan for waste management and sustainable development might be the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB) based in Seville. This EU organisation promotes the exchange of technical information between member states and publishes reference documents (BREFS) on "Best Available Technologies" (BAT), for application in all areas related to the environmental aspects of waste management and industrial activities.

The use of EIPPCB reference documents for selecting suitable technologies may also facilitate politicians' efforts to track down and access the special funds for waste management and environmental projects that exist somewhere in the bureaucratic mazes of Brussels. If Malta selects EU-approved technologies, then maybe the EU will be more inclined to pay for them.

It is worth emphasising as a final point that the technology for resolving all of Malta's environmental problems already exist and continue to be developed. These "Best Available Technologies" are being promoted by the EIPPCB within the European Union. As a member state, Malta will have direct access to this wealth of scientific and technological knowledge and expertise, as well as funding to finance their implementation. The first challenge will be to identify the "Best Available Technologies" most suitable for our country's needs. The second, and probably most crucial challenge, will be to implement them effectively.

Mr Grima is a technical consultant with W.J. Parnis England Ltd, representing B&V Water Treatment Ltd (UK), LBWT Ltd (UK), and Mexel S.A. (France).