Referendum in Belgium - MSW Incinerator

[Emmanuel de Broux <edebroux@tornado.be>]

On Wastenet, Duncan Philips <Duncan@GENESIS2.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote :

In message <2.2.32.19961014091257.006a77e0@mailhost.tornado.be>,
Emmanuel de Broux <edebroux@TORNADO.BE> writes
>
>I have the pleasure to report the smashing success a local referendum has
>obtained about a project of a 235,000 metric tonne/year MSW incinerator at
>Ciney, Belgium : 61% of the people authorized to vote have participated,
>91.57% of the voters having answered NO to the incinerator. The combination
>of both figures gives 55.7% of people being opposed to the thing. There was
>no legal obligation to vote.
<snip>

I'd be interested to know what information, as opposed to mis-information,
that these people were given prior to the voting??

Is it not the case that modern combustion techniques and flue gas cleaning
make waste incineration, particularly when combined with energy generation,
a viable disposal option??   The days of the old unregulated incinerators
are long gone....    Or, was this more a case of 'not in my back yard'!!!

E. de Broux answers :

The NIMBY syndrome might well have played a role in the result. But that has
not been enough. The aerial pollution of that incinerator - after flue gases
have been scrubbed -  wass still far from being negligible. Nitrogen dioxide
were not neutralized by some DENOX system. Bottom ash was not neutralized
either although it is known to contain carbohalogens (read : dioxins,
furans, PCBs, etc) and lots of heavy metal salts and oxides which were due
to leach out of the landfill where it was dumped after "maturation" (read :
degasification). Fly ash known to be highly toxic was supposed to be
neutralized but no details were available. Lignite coke used to capture part
of the carbohalogens and mercury vapor was dumped into landfills without
decontamination - in other words, pollution was simply moved. Water
consumption was very important.

Another factor played a role. MSW thermolysis was proposed as an
alternative. It is now known to be a much cleaner and environmental friendly
way of treating MSW - it is cheaper too in terms of investment and operating
costs when the carbon mass it produces is used in cement kilns.

Finally, two other Belgian towns - Namur and Andenne - had already refused
the same MSW incinerator.

All that was enough to get the result you know.

Best regards, Manu.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.ic.be/incin/leignon.htm and http://www.ic.be/incin to know
everything about municipal solid waste thermolysis vs. incineration. Site is
bilingual French + English. - edebroux@tornado.be -- Phone and fax +32 83 21
54 30
Emmanuel de Broux, rue du Sacre-Coeur 7, B-5590 Leignon, Belgium