FACTS on the new Thermal Treatment Facility 

All you need to know about WasteServ’s new project.

CLAIM 1: The new Thermal Treatment Facility will impact the air quality within a six-kilometre radius

The six-kilometre radius represents the Area of Influence (AoI) used in the Environmental Impact Assessment for air quality modelling. It does not indicate an actual area of adverse impact. 

This modelling boundary enables a thorough evaluation of air quality at both nearby and more distant locations, confirming no significant change in air quality throughout most of this area. Suggesting that the entire six-kilometre radius will be negatively impacted is completely misleading. 

Only one location, an agricultural plot approximately 400 metres from the facility, may experience a slight increase in particulate matter, which remains far below health thresholds.

CLAIM 2: The Thermal Treatment Facility will negatively impact the health of residents and their children

The Environmental Impact Assessment included a dedicated assessment of all sensitive receptors, including schools, households and other facilities within the area of influence. The facility will use Best Available Technology (BAT) and a robust multi-barrier emissions control system to minimise environmental and health risks. 

Air dispersion modelling found no significant adverse health effects, even in worst-case scenarios. Only one sensitive receptor (R27), an agricultural plot approximately 400 metres from the facility, may experience a minor cumulative impact due to the Thermal Treatment Facility and the adjacent Waste-to-Energy Plant, which remains far below health thresholds. 

More importantly, all projected emissions fall well below the thresholds set by the EU Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe (2008/50/EC), ensuring the protection of public health.

CLAIM 3: The Environmental Impact Assessment makes no reference to PM_2.5 

PM_2.5 refers to fine particulate matter, particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller. The Environmental Impact Assessment evaluated three scenarios:      

• Scenario A: 60 per cent load for 24 hours. 
• Scenario B: 100 per cent load for 23 hours, and 110 per cent for one hour. 
• Scenario C: Based on Schedule 2 of Subsidiary Legislation on Industrial Emissions (Waste Incineration) (S.L. 549.81), with 150 mg/Nm³ dust at chimney. 

All findings indicated that PM_2.5, as well as PM₁₀ and NO₂ concentrations, would remain within regulatory air quality limits.

CLAIM 4: The Environmental Impact Assessment fails to mention nanoparticles

Nanoparticles were considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment and were specifically accounted for in the air dispersion modelling. 

Emissions were quantified in nanograms per cubic metre (ng/m³), particularly for pollutants such as heavy metals and dioxins. Some pollutants were assessed at even lower scales, such as picograms. The modelling also included deposition rates for ultrafine particles and volatile substances, and assumptions to assess worst-case impacts at sensitive receptor locations. 

This methodology is consistent with EU best practices and confirms that levels of very fine pollutants, including nanoparticles, remain well below regulatory thresholds and pose no risk to public health.

CLAIM 5: The new Thermal Treatment Facility will emit carbon dioxide and dioxins

Emissions of both carbon dioxide and dioxins have been fully assessed:

• Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): While not classified as a toxic air pollutant under the Ambient Air Quality Directive, CO₂ emissions were considered.  The facility’s overall greenhouse gas performance is aligned with requirements. 
• Dioxins: Emissions were modelled in detail, with projected daily depositions significantly below legal limits, even in worst-case conditions.
  
  

CLAIM 6: The new Thermal Treatment Facility will process 400 tonnes of waste per day

The new Thermal Treatment Facility (TTF) will include two independent lines, each with an annual capacity of 7,000 tonnes of waste. 

Initially, only one line will be in operation, with the second to be activated only if demand increases. At full capacity, with both lines operational, the facility would process an average of 38 tonnes per day, far below the claimed figure.

CLAIM 7: Prevailing wind patterns were not taken into account

The assessment used wind data from 2021 and identified two predominant wind directions: Northwest to Southeast, and West-Southwest to East-Northeast. 

Additionally, the assessment considered the wind vector, the direction in which the wind blows, rather than the direction from which it originates, to more effectively account for pollutant dispersion. 

Again, it is important to highlight that the study did not find any cause for concern. 

CLAIM 8: The Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted in a piecemeal, “salami-sliced” manner

The Environmental Impact Assessment was neither fragmented nor conducted in isolation. It was carried out as a coordinated and comprehensive study in full compliance with EU legislation. 

The assessment began with a baseline assessment of the current environmental conditions and took into consideration other major projects at Magħtab, such as the Waste-to-Energy Plant, the Organic Processing Plant, and the Material Recovery Facility. It also evaluated cumulative impacts, such as combined air emissions, and was aligned with the principles of EU Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 2011/92/EU), which explicitly prohibits fragmented assessments. 

Section 2.3.3, “Other planning developments in the area” of the Coordinated Assessment refers to proposed projects under the ECOHIVE project, namely the waste-to-energy project, the organic processing plant, and the Material Recovery Facility. 

It also considers Enemalta’s new electricity interconnector (IC2).

CLAIM 9: This project does not represent a green solution

The new Thermal Treatment Facility (TTF) is a key component of Malta’s sustainable waste management strategy and directly supports the transition to a circular, low-emissions economy. 

Key environmental benefits include: 

• Replacing an outdated facility with one that incorporates Best Available Technology (BAT), including advanced filtration systems and real-time emission monitoring. 
• Treating unavoidable hazardous waste locally, reducing reliance on waste exports and associated emissions.
• Complying with the EU Waste Hierarchy by managing waste that cannot be reduced, reused, or recycled.
• Supporting Malta’s Long Term Waste Management Plan 2021-2030, (2021–2030) and reducing dependence on landfilling.
• Achieving emission levels well below EU thresholds, as verified by the independent Environmental Impact Assessment
  
  

CLAIM 10: ECOHIVE is purely an exercise in greenwashing

Announced in 2020, the ECOHIVE Project represents the largest investment ever made in Malta’s waste management sector. It marks a transformative step forward, not only in waste management but also in enhancing the country’s overall environmental performance and achieving its waste management targets. 

With an investment of €500 million, the project is enabling Malta to shift from a long-standing dependence on landfilling towards a circular economy, where waste is viewed as a resource. The results will be measurable, visible, and essential for Malta’s future.

CLAIM 11: There were no consultations with local councils or residents

From 25th March to 5th May 2024, the public could contribute to the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment, which outlines the studies required for the assessment. 

Once the Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out, a newspaper advert was published on 9th March 2025 to inform the public that it was available. This was followed by a public hearing held on 23rd April 2025, to present the Environmental Impact Assessment. 

This was open to everyone, and attendees had the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Following the hearing, the public had until 30th April to submit further comments.

CLAIM 12: No alternative sites were considered

Based on technical and environmental criteria, Magħtab was identified as the most effective and appropriate location. 

Locating the new Thermal Treatment Facility at Magħtab allows it to form part of the existing waste management infrastructure. The site benefits from established road access, utilities, and logistical systems, enabling a more centralised and efficient waste management operation. This approach not only enhances system performance but also reduces reliance on landfilling, limits waste transport impacts, and helps lower operational costs. 

More details on this are available in the ‘Alternative Site’ section of the Environmental Impact Assessment. 

CLAIM 13: The incinerator will be overloaded with more waste than it was designed to handle

The Thermal Treatment Facility has been designed with built-in safeguards to prevent overloading. 

It is engineered to operate at a thermal load between 60 per cent and 100 per cent, with a short-term allowance of 110 per cent for up to one hour per day, in line with industry standards. These operational limits are continuously monitored by automated systems. 

Should any parameter exceed safe thresholds, the system will automatically shut down, ensuring safe, stable, and compliant performance at all times. 

Jekk tixtieq taqra din l-informazzjoni bil-Malti, jekk jogħġbok agħfas hawn.