Saya aminkan saja dehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh pak Chris............
Perdebatan mengenai incinerator sdh ditutup kok................saya
anggap..itupun setelah tidak ada sanggahan kembali mengenai tanggapan teknis
incinerator dari rekan kami Sdra Eka
Dan juga telah ditutup oleh saudara Sugianto.............yang katanya debat
kusir................
mungkin nanti kalau ada artikel2 bagus akan saya
posting.............kembali., Satu hal lagi kami tidak pernah merasa
ketinggalan kok.......isue2 lingkungan terkecuali kalau dibandingkan dgn
perkembangan komputer............
yang menyangka kami ketinggalan kan anda dan konco2ne.............
Thanks
Edo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Sutanto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "HMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Lingk] RE: [PB] Fw: Medical waste incineration is poisoning
communities.htm
> YTH HMP,
>
> Kalau begitu tampilkan isu yang terbaru dong supaya tidak dikira
ketinggalan
> infotek dan supaya kami-kami ini bisa menimpali secara tepat.
>
> Selamat belajar.Tuhan memberkati.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "HMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chris Sutanto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "HSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Herlinda HB
> Murap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Envorum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Biotek"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Migas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "K3_LH
> Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lingkungan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [Lingk] RE: [PB] Fw: Medical waste incineration is poisoning
> communities.htm
>
>
> > Artikel2 terbaru juga masih menentang incinerator kok...............
> > coba di browse dong di internet di web EPA dan green peace............
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Sutanto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "HMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > "HSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Herlinda HB Murap"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Envorum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Biotek"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "Migas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "K3_LH
> > Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lingkungan"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Lingk] RE: [PB] Fw: Medical waste incineration is
poisoning
> > communities.htm
> >
> >
> > > Bapak-bapak dan ibu-ibu sekalian, kami ingin urun rembuk dalam masalah
> isu
> > > US EPA 1992 yang kami nilai sudah kadaluwarsa 12 tahun. Dalam dunia
> > > informasi kadaluwarsa 12 tahun berarti kehilangan informsi sebesar
> minimal
> > > 21 Gbyte dalam bentuk text bacaan ( khusus untuk Incinerator
> saja ).Dalam
> > > hal perkembangan komputer , 12 tahun berarti revolusi dari drum disk (
> > yang
> > > berdiameter 22" tebal 3" dengan kapasitas 10 Mbyte ) ke DVD ( yang
> > > berdiameter 4.5" tebal 2 mm berkapasitas 4.7 Gbyte ) dan processor
> dengan
> > > keceptan 60 Mhz menjadi 3 Ghz ) Jadi dari segi ukuran vs kapasitas
sudah
> > > terjadi revolusi sebesar 33700 x ......bayangkan sendiri betapa
jauhnya.
> > > Justru dengan mengangkat kembali isu yang sudah 12 tahun kadaluwarsa
ini
> > > menyingkapkan dengan jelas betapa purbanya kita ini dan .......malu
> bener
> > > nih sementara orang Amerika sendiri tidak mengalami masalah apa-apa
> > sekarang
> > > ini. Bahkan tetangga ningrat kita sendiri ( Singapore ) memanfaatkn
> > > incinerator untuk kebutuhan listriknya. Wuah...kita ketinggalan ya;
kita
> > > masih pro kontra mereka sudah menikmati.
> > >
> > > Kita sadari bahwa pencetus isu kadaluwarsa di mailing ini tidak tahu
> > tentang
> > > Incinerator. Untuk itu kita bisa memaklumi dan berusaha memberikan
> > bimbingan
> > > yang baik agar lingkungan sosial kita ini terbina dan cerdas.
> > > Sebenarnya diskusi ini bisa kita arahkan kejurusan sains dengan
segala
> > > aspek chemistrynya yang di mulai dengan ABCD "CARBON", yang berarti
ada
> > > penjelasan-penjelasan nan panjang, lebar dan lama. Kami yakini hal itu
> > akan
> > > sangat membosankan .
> > > Karena kita sedang menuju Indonesia baru yang scientific, cerdas dan
> > dewasa,
> > > mari kita berikan bimbingan kepada saudara kita yang tidak mengerti
ini
> > > dengan penjelasan yang sederhana saja sbb.:
> > > 1. Teknologi Incinerator berkembang sebagaimana teknologi lainnya.
Jadi
> > apa
> > > yang menjadi
> > > masalah bulan ini, mungkin sudah teratasi bulan depan. Apa yang
> > menjadi
> > > isu tahun ini sudah
> > > bisa beres tahun depannya lagi.
> > > 2. Sudah 12 tahun berlalu.....industri Incinerator bertumbuh dengan
baik
> > dan
> > > tidak ada lagi
> > > keberatan-keberatan yang signifikan di negara paman sam yang no 1
> > dalam
> > > penggunaan
> > > Incinerator.
> > > 3. Kalau Incinerator di tolak , limbah B3 disimpan dimana ? Haruskah
> PPLI
> > > diperluas seluas
> > > JABOTABEK ?
> > > 4. Bagaimanpun juga Incinerator masih merupakan Waste Disposal System
> yang
> > > terbaik sampai
> > > hari ini.
> > > 5. Dari pada menolak incinerator, lebih baik memberikan usulan solusi
> yang
> > > lebih baik dibanding
> > > incinerator.
> > >
> > > Bagaimanapun juga harus ditentukan kriterianya : Incinerator yang
> > bagaimana
> > > yang harus ditolak dan yang harus didukung perkebangannya.
> > >
> > > Salam sejahtera semua, Tuhan meberkati.
> > >
> > > Chris Sutanto
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "HMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "HSE"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Herlinda HB Murap"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Envorum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Biotek"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: "Chris Sutanto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Migas"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "K3_LH
Moderator"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lingkungan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Lingk] RE: [PB] Fw: Medical waste incineration is
> poisoning
> > > communities.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ini artikel dari EPA juga sdh dikatakan semua jenis incinerator
gagal
> > > > memenuhi EPA(Enviroment Protection Agency)
> > > > ini di amerika lho mas yang teknologinya sdh canggih, apalagi di
> > > > kita........yg semuanya amburadullllllllllllll
> > > > baik incinerator dan orang2nya..................
> > > > ini terbukti kita sangat ketinggalan ,issue ini dirilis sejak thn
> 1992,
> > > kita
> > > > sampai tahun 2004 saja disini masih banyak pengagum
> > > incinerator............
> > > > bahaya nih.................
> > > > jadi kayanya browsing di internet utk cari info harus digalakan nih
> buat
> > > > kita2............, supaya kita tdk ketinggalan informasi.........
> > > >
> > > > Tapi memang ada sih Incinerator yang bagus...............tapi di
Indo
> > saya
> > > > tdk yakin ........karena pembuat regulator, dll
> > > > rawan korupsi ...............
> > > >
> > > > tolong dibaca dgn seksama..........
> > > > jadi bukan kampanye yang mengada2....................
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =======================Electronic Edition========================
> > > >
> > > > RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #312
> > > > ---November 18, 1992---
> > > > News and resources for environmental justice.
> > > > ------
> > > > Environmental Research Foundation
> > > > P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
> > > > Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > ==========
> > > > The Back issues and Index are available here.
> > > > The official RACHEL archive is here. It's updated constantly.
> > > > To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel- weekly- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free.
> > > > ===Previous Issue==========================================Next
> Issue===
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NEW EPA MEMO SAYS ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS FAIL TO MEET
> > > REGULATIONS
> > > > An internal memo sent to all 10 regional offices of EPA [U.S.
> > > Environmental
> > > > Protection Agency] by Sylvia Lowrance, EPA Director of Solid Waste,
> > > confirms
> > > > that hazardous waste incinerators cannot meet EPA requirements for
> > > > near-total destruction of hazardous wastes. (See RHWN #280.)
> > > >
> > > > EPA's incinerator regulations require 99.99 percent destruction of
all
> > > > hazardous wastes and 99.9999 percent destruction of
> especially-hazardous
> > > > wastes such as PCBs and dioxins. The Lowrance memo dated Sept. 22,
> 1992,
> > > and
> > > > interviews with Sonya Sasseville of Ms. Lowrance's staff, confirm
that
> > the
> > > > agency possessed scientific information as early as 1984 showing
that
> > > > hazardous waste incinerators cannot destroy some of the most
dangerous
> > > > wastes as completely as the regulations require.
> > > >
> > > > EPA possessed this information but chose to ignore it when hazardous
> > waste
> > > > incinerator regulations were established for dioxin in 1985.
> > > >
> > > > These new revelations cast doubt on the safety of all hazardous
waste
> > > > incinerators, and could conceivably lead to charges of criminal
> > wrongdoing
> > > > by some EPA officials. The agency has been touting incineration as
> > "safe"
> > > > for more than a decade. When asked, agency officials define "safe"
as
> > "in
> > > > compliance with all regulations." In sum, the agency established
> > > regulations
> > > > in 1985 knowing no incinerator could comply, and now the agency's
own
> > > logic
> > > > forces the conclusion that no hazardous waste incinerator can be
> > operated
> > > > safely. It would appear to expose the agency to liability claims by
> > anyone
> > > > believing they have been harmed by incinerator emissions.
> > > >
> > > > EPA's acknowledgement of its malfeasance surfaced during an
> incinerator
> > > > battle in Jacksonville, Arkansas. For the past decade Arkansas
> Governor
> > > Bill
> > > > Clinton and the citizens of Jacksonville, have been battling each
> other
> > > over
> > > > the Governor's plan to burn dioxin-contaminated chemical warfare
> agents
> > in
> > > a
> > > > residential neighborhood of Jacksonville. (See RHWN #311.) EPA
> officials
> > > in
> > > > Region 6 (Dallas, Texas) supported the Governor's plan.
> > > >
> > > > The Jacksonville wastes contain an estimated 75 pounds (34
kilograms)
> of
> > > > pure dioxin, a poison that kills laboratory animals such as guinea
> pigs
> > > > exposed to only a few micrograms, making it one of the most powerful
> > > poisons
> > > > ever found. From 1988 onward, federal and state environmental
> officials
> > in
> > > > Jacksonville said publicly on numerous occasions that an incinerator
> > could
> > > > destroy dioxin with 99.9999 percent efficiency, thus eliminating all
> > > health
> > > > threats to the surrounding community. The Lowrance memo makes it
clear
> > > that
> > > > Region 6 EPA officials were either lying or were kept ignorant by
> > > officials
> > > > at EPA headquarters in Washington who knew the truth.
> > > >
> > > > EPA's regulatory failure was discovered when an independent
> researcher,
> > > > chemist Pat Costner of Greenpeace, analyzed government data from the
> > > > Jacksonville incinerator as it was being tested before startup. In
> early
> > > > 1992, Costner analyzed government data collected during an October,
> > 1991,
> > > > trial burn in Jacksonville. Her analysis revealed that instead of
> > 99.9999
> > > > percent ("six nines") destructiuon, the Jacksonville incinerator had
> > > > achieved only 99.96 percent destruction of dioxin. Federal and state
> > > > officials confirmed her analysis. At that rate the Jacksonville
> > > incinerator
> > > > would release 400 times as much dioxin as the regulations say it
> should.
> > > >
> > > > How the Regulations Work
> > > >
> > > > EPA's hazardous waste regulations require the owner/operator of a
new
> > > > incinerator to select several POHCs (principal organic hazardous
> > > > constituents)--chemicals to be destroyed. The selected POHCs must be
> > > harder
> > > > to burn than dioxin. The POHCs are "surrogates" for dioxin--they
> "stand
> > > for"
> > > > dioxin or "represent" dioxin during the test. During a "trial burn,"
> the
> > > > POHC surrogates are fed into the incinerator in nearly pure form
under
> > > ideal
> > > > laboratory conditions, and the incinerator's ability to destroy them
> is
> > > > measured. If a destruction/removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999
percent
> > is
> > > > achieved with the POHCs, then EPA allows the owner/operator to
assume
> > that
> > > > 99.9999 percent of dioxin will also have been destroyed. It is this
> > > > assumption that EPA has known since 1984 is false.
> > > >
> > > > The trial burn procedure was followed precisely in the Jacksonville
> > case,
> > > > with one exception. The owner/operator inadvertently burned some
> actual
> > > > dioxin along with the POHCs during the trial burn and dutifully
> reported
> > > the
> > > > DRE for the POHCs, but did not analyze the data to establish a DRE
for
> > > > dioxin. Costner did the calculation for dioxin and revealed that
> dioxin
> > > was
> > > > not destroyed with an efficiency anywhere near six nines.
> > > >
> > > > Since Region 6 officials had been promising for several years that
the
> > > > Jacksonville incinerator would destroy dioxin with six nines
> efficiency,
> > > > Costner's analysis made them look like fools or liars or both.
Region
> 6
> > > > called headquarters for guidance and on September 22, Sylvia
Lowrance
> > sent
> > > > out a memo telling regional EPA offices how to handle this
> embarrassing
> > > > situation.
> > > >
> > > > The Lowrance memo says, in part, "The low dioxin DRE in this recent
> > > > [Jacksonville] case was consistent with our current body of
> incinerator
> > > > performance data, which show a very clear trend of decreasing DRE
for
> > > > hazardous constituents with decreasing incoming concentration of the
> > > > constituents in the waste feed. (That is, the lower the constituent
> > > > concentration in the waste, the lower the DRE.) The data show that a
> > > > properly operating incinerator, which reached 99.99% DRE (four
nines)
> on
> > > > higher concentrations of POHCs, will often achieve less than four
> nines
> > > when
> > > > the concentration of a POHC (principal organic hazardous
constituent)
> in
> > > the
> > > > waste is less than 1000 ppm [parts per million]. At this time we
have
> > not
> > > > established a definitive scientific explanation for this
phenomenon,"
> > the
> > > > memo says.
> > > >
> > > > The Lowrance memo goes on to point out that, in establishing
> regulations
> > > for
> > > > incineration of dioxin-contaminated wastes, in 1985, EPA relied on
> risk
> > > > assessments in which the agency assumed that 99.9999 percent
> destruction
> > > was
> > > > routinely achieved. "For this reason, the risk assessment
calculations
> > > > performed in the course of the rulemaking may not be representative
in
> > > some
> > > > cases," the Lowrance memo says. In sum, the entire superstructure of
> > > > regulations created for dioxin incineration in 1985 was based on
> > > assumptions
> > > > that the agency knew at the time were false. Indeed, in an internal
> EPA
> > > memo
> > > > dated October 24, 1985, Robert A. Olexsey, who was at the time an
> > employee
> > > > of EPA's Hazardous Waste Environmental Research Laboratory, wrote
"We
> > have
> > > a
> > > > problem with the 'surrogate POHC' approach for the determination of
> the
> > > > dioxin destruction efficiency. In our incinerator and boiler field
> > tests,
> > > we
> > > > found a consistent relationship.... In essence, across the entire
test
> > > > program, POHC DRE increased with increasing POHC concentration in
the
> > > feed.
> > > > If this relationship holds for dioxin (we see no reason why it would
> > not),
> > > > reporting the DRE for the dioxin material as being identical to that
> of
> > > the
> > > > higher concentration surrogate will result in overstating the DRE
for
> > the
> > > > dioxin waste." Olexsey went on to recommend that dioxin itself be
> > measured
> > > > during incinerator tests, to check the efficiency of destruction,
> rather
> > > > than testing a POHC and assuming that it revealed something about
> > dioxin.
> > > > Olexsey's advice was not followed.
> > > >
> > > > During 1984-1985, John C. Kramlich of the Energy and Environmental
> > > Research
> > > > Corporation (Irvine, Cal.) completed a contract study for EPA,
> analyzing
> > > the
> > > > failure of hazardous waste incinerators to destroy wastes. EPA did
not
> > > > publish the Kramlich study until 1989. Kramlich wrote, "[Our]
results
> > > > indicate that current technology has difficulty meeting the
licensing
> > > > regulations when the waste represents less than 1000 ppm [parts per
> > > million]
> > > > of the feed stream. This finding has significance with respect to
> waste
> > > > streams contaminated by low concentrations of extremely hazardous
> > > materials
> > > > (e.g. dioxin or chlorophenol contaminated pesticides)."[1]
> > > >
> > > > EPA's data reveal that all incinerators fail in the same way, but
the
> > > public
> > > > health hazard seems especially great at sites burning
> wood-preservative
> > > > wastes, pesticides, PCBs, pulp and paper mill sludges, or dioxins.
All
> > > > contaminated-soil incinerators, all Superfund cleanup incinerators,
> and
> > > all
> > > > of the Army's proposed chemical weapons incinerators are also cast
> into
> > > > doubt by EPA's recent admissions. Furthermore, all of the agency's
> risk
> > > > assessments and rulemakings regarding hazardous waste incinerators
are
> > now
> > > > known to have been based on false assumptions. In short, the entire
> > > > regulatory structure intended to guarantee the protection of public
> > health
> > > > and safety from hazardous waste incinerators has now been thrown
into
> > > grave
> > > > question.
> > > > --Peter Montague, Ph.D.
> > > >
> > > > ===============
> > > > [1] John C. Kramlich and others, EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF
> CRITICAL
> > > > FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATION (Springfield, VA:
> > > > National Technical Information Service [NTIS], September, 1989.)
This
> is
> > > EPA
> > > > document No. EPA/600/2-[89/048] available from NTIS for $26.00;
phone
> > > (800)
> > > > 553-6847 and request NTIS document No. PB90-108507. See pgs. 5-1,
5-2.
> > > >
> > > > Descriptor terms: hazardous waste incineration; epa; waste disposal
> > > > techologies; waste treatment technologies; dre; regulations;
> > jacksonville;
> > > > ar; studies; sylvia lowrance; dioxin; health;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pb mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dml.or.id/mailman/listinfo/pb_dml.or.id
