Expert studies blast government’s heavy fuel choice

This emerges from reports submitted to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority by a team of experts on behalf of the B’Bugia, Zejtun and Marsaxlokk councils.

Physicist Edward Mallia, engineer Arthur Ciantar, medical doctor Jason Bonnici and architects Carmel Cacopardo and Edric Micallef wrote the reports.

MEPA is currently assessing an Integrated Pollution Control Permit which will determine whether the new power station will be fired by heavy fuel oil as requested by government or gasoil (diesel) as requested by environmentalists and local councils.

A spokesperson for MEPA confirmed that as regards the choice of fuel, the Authority had asked the operator to include a study which estimates the financial costs and environmental benefits of operating the Delimara extension using three different different types of fuel – heavy fuel oil, gasoil and gas.

“This is currently being evaluated by MEPA and a recommendation to the Board will be finalised in the coming weeks”.

MEPA’s role when issuing IPPC permits is to ensure that EU emission limit values and other EU directives are respected, to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole.

Fine particulate matter set to increase

Engineer Arthur Ciantar refers to studies showing that the use of Heavy Fuel Oil by the new Delimara Power Station will increase the emissions of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) by 63.49% over and above the emissions of the existing Delimara Power Station.

On the other hand, the use of gasoil instead of HFO will result in a decrease of these levels by 37.75%.

The EU’s clean air directive states that ‘particulate matter PM 2.5 is responsible for significant negative impacts on human health.’

Dr Jason Bonnici refers to US studies showing that for every 10μg/m3 increase in fine particulate air pollution, there is a 4% increased risk in general mortality, a 6% increased risk of cardiopulmonary mortality and an 8% increased risk of lung cancer mortality.

Cacopardo notes that given how the EU Directive states that member States should take all necessary measures to reduce exposure to PM2.5, it follows that “the minimum expected of MEPA is not to approve IPPC permits which increase exposure to PM2.5 emissions unnecessarily.”

The directive states that there are as yet no identifiable thresholds below which PM2.5 would not pose a risk and therefore calls for a general reduction of concentrations in the urban background to ensure that large sections of the population benefit from improved air quality.

However, the Directive establishes 25μg/m3 as the upper limit of exposure to PM2.5, which had to be met by January 2010.

But measurements taken on 29 separate occasions at the Marsaxlokk air monitoring station, established by MEPA, already document high levels of PM2.5 particulate matter which already exceed the average annual level stipulated by the Clean air Directive.

The average daily reading for PM2.5 is quoted as being 52.70 μg/m3 for Marsaxlokk and 34.70 μg/m3 for B’Bugia.

On the other hand, the maximum readings for PM2.5 is quoted as being 149 μg/m3 for Marsaxlokk and 61μg/m3 for B’Bugia.

The same Directive establishes 35μg/m3 as the upper limit of exposure to PM10.

The average daily reading for PM10 is quoted as being 54.10 μg/m3 for Marsaxlokk and 70 μg/m3 for B’Bugia.

On the other hand, the maximum readings for PM10 was 154 μg/m3 for Marsaxlokk and 250μg/m3 for B’Bugia.

Commenting on the already high levels of particulate matter in the Marsaxlokk-B’Bugia areas, Cacopardo contends that it is MEPA’s duty not to make it any worse through approving technology using HFO, which further increases PM10, PM2.5 emissions thus making an already bad situation worse.

No reference to Vanadium in IPPC studies

It also emerges that studies presented by Enemalta to MEPA failed to assess the impact of vanadium a heavy metal found in Heavy Fuel Oil, when determining the height of the power station chimneys.

When MEPA approved the original permit for the power station, the height of the chimneys was listed as a “reserved matter” to be determined by MEPA at a later stage.

But Enemalta has proceeded to build the chimneys at a height of 65 meters as recommended in an air dispersion study conducted by Ecoserv, which omitted any reference to vanadium.

Neither was vanadium considered in determining the shadow price of emissions in the cost benefit analysis comparing the use of gasoil and heavy fuel oil.

Although vanadium is a naturally occurring element, the inhalation of air containing vanadium can cause lung irritation, sore throat, wheezing, chest pain, runny nose, and asthma.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that vanadium is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Vanadium is practically absent in Gasoil, which is a refined product. But it is present in Heavy Fuel Oil, which consists of the residue produced by refineries once other petroleum products have been extracted.

If the Delimara Power Station Extension were to be operated with Heavy Fuel Oil, the emission of Vandium would increase by 81.43% over present levels produced by existing Delimara plant.

The Cost Benefit Analysis prepared by Cubed – a company owned by economist Gordon Cordina – includes a section dealing with emissions, where the shadow prices of emissions is established.

Among the emissions listed in Cordina’s report are arsenic and cadmium, which are both present in HFO. But the report ignored the most prevalent metals in HFO are Nickle (Ni), Vanadium (V) and Lead (Pb) in that order.

 “Why are these not listed in the shadow price list?” Edward Mallia asked in a study submitted by the local councils

The air dispersion study by Ecoserv, which justified the current heights of the new power station chimneys, refers to nickel and lead, but not to Vandium.

“As the source for these metals is HFO and not gasoil, these omissions clearly “improve” the case for use of HFO” notes Mallia.

Equal risks for HFO and diesel

In his study, Mallia also disputes the conclusion of the Cost Benefit analysis that all fuels considered – HFO, gasoil and natural gas – carry equal risks.

“HFO producing 31 tonnes of hazardous waste per day, requiring collecting, storing and eventual round-about land transport to the Freeport must carry greater risks than gasoil with no such waste”.

According to Mallia, handling, treating and burning the HFO sludge will also increase risk both to humans and to boilers. And use of HFO will also require a large gasoil reserve in case of breakdown in the waste disposal chain stopping the use of HFO.

Mallia disputes the costings contained in the report.

But even taking the CBA conclusions for the long term as “gospel”, the difference between HFO and gasoil costs is said to amount to just 0.3% of GDP accumulated to 2031.

“Surely it is worth spending that sum to avoid the risks involved in massive use of HFO,” Mallia wrote.