• Decision taken on 3 April – one month after PM alerted to allegations
• Technology chosen for €200 million plant has never been tested
• No EIA, no explanation for ‘strange’ legal change, no inquiry
Karl Stagno-Navarra
Government has awarded a €200 million contract for the extension of the Delimara power plant to Scandinavian firm Burmeister & Wain (BWSC), who have reportedly submitted a prototype, never tested, and highly polluting technology that runs on heavy fuel oil and will require handling between 50 to 60 tonnes of toxic waste per day.
The news was confirmed by Director of Contracts Francis Attard, who replied to this paper yesterday in the wake of the controversy surrounding the public tender, following allegations of irregularities during the process of adjudication. Forty-eight hours after the story was revealed last Sunday in sister paper ‘Illum’, Enemalta officials yesterday asked for a meeting with the General Contracts Committee. No details emerged from the meeting, and the minutes remain unknown.
While no environmental impact assessment was conducted or is scheduled to be conducted in the near future, government surprisingly increased the emission limits by means of a Legal Notice published on 4 January 2008.
The call for tenders had been issued in 2007: a fact which has since raised questions about whether the legal notice may have compromised the adjudicating process by changing the selection criteria for the original contract specifications.
Furtehrmore it has been observed that the footprint of the existing facility in Delimara provides sufficient space only for Phase Two of the extension of the plant, and not for Phase Three, that will have to be considered when the Marsa power plant will have to be shut down by 2015.
The issue has been brewing since March, when multinational Hutney-Bateman – also a bidder for the same contract – wrote a letter to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi with a series of allegations about irregularities during the adjudicating process.
These irregularities allegedly prejudiced Hutney-Bateman’s offer; however the Israeli company’s claims were ignored until last week, when a copy of their complaint was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee.
The PAC in turn requested “verification” of the details through the Finance ministry’s permanent secretary and the Auditor General. These verifications were still under way until last night and according to parliamentary officials, the Public Accounts Committee will be expecting a first report during next Tuesday evening’s meeting.
Minister Austin Gatt on Monday hit back at Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat for speaking about the matter, and accused him of “representing” the Israeli owned firm: a charge immediately denied by Muscat and Hutney-Bateman.
Investigations conducted by this paper have revealed that government had already awarded the multi-million contract, and an appropriate notice was published on the Department of Contract’s notice board on 3 April – one month after Hutney-Bateman wrote to the Prime Minister.
However, what the Department of Contracts did not explain is that Clause 1.19 of the instruction to bidders stated that all bidders will receive notification about the success or otherwise of their bid.
Hutney-Bateman insist that they never received any such notification. Instead they received a notice on 4 May – only after they enquired about the outcome of their bid – referring them to the notice board and explaining that the 10-day appeal period had expired.
Moreover, Hutney-Bateman pinpointed a series of unexplained anomalies during the adjudicating process: including the issuing of a Legal Notice that increased the emission limits during the bid period, “strangely” enabling the diesel engine technology to comply with the requirements, in contrast to the original levels on the proper tender document.
But the main issue around the tender is that the evaluation model does not take into account the use of natural gas, although the use of natural gas was declared as a strategic goal for Malta by the Climate Change Committee.
The debate about the tender got hotter yesterday when Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi intervened by lashing out at Labour Leader Joseph Muscat.
Speaking during a press conference, Lawrence Gonzi insisted that “had the bid been accepted (Hutney-Bateman), power tariffs would have had to rise substantially.”
While it is true that Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) is cheaper than natural gas, environmentalists told this newspaper that a plant run on natural gas would have incurred much lower running costs over 15-20 years than the alternatives offered.
Engineers have also questioned the reasoning behind the choice of fuel oil rather than gas, as well as the increase in emission limits, in addition to the production of 40 to 60 tonnes of toxic waste every day, that would have to be shipped to third countries at an extra cost.
This toxic waste is hazardous for the safety of Enemalta employees and the general populations of Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk.
Contacted by this paper, mayors from both localities have expressed their concerns about this development, while they informed this paper that they will be convening their respective councils this week to consult environmental experts about the potential impact.
Meanwhile, environmental agencies have already sounded the alarm bells about the increase in emissions, and the implications of the government’s choice to discard natural gas and go for fuel oil to generate power for the country. They are expected to make formal declarations in the coming days.
Contacted yesterday, Professor Edward Mallia, from the Department of Physics at the University of Malta stated simply that on environmental matters, “government cannot be trusted any longer.”
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
