Shipboard Pollution Control : U.S. Navy Compliance with MARPOL Annex V [1 ed.] 9780309573696

Citation preview

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

i

SHIPBOARD POLLUTION CONTROL U.S. Navy Compliance With MARPOL Annex V

Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control Naval Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ii

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This work was performed under Department of Navy Contract N00014-93-C-0089 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do. Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences . All rights reserved. Additional copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iii

COMMITTEE ON SHIPBOARD POLLUTION CONTROL DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey, Chair ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALLEN M. BISSELL, Chevy Chase, Maryland EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University JOHN B. CARBERRY, DuPont Science & Engineering SHELDON K. FRIEDLANDER, University of California at Los Angeles DOUGLAS W. FUERSTENAU, University of California at Berkeley EDWARD D. GOLDBERG, Scripps Institution of Oceanography MICHAEL R. HOFFMANN, California Institute of Technology GEORGE P. KORFIATIS, Stevens Institute of Technology JOANN S. LIGHTY, University of Utah THOMAS P. MACKEY, Hyde Products, Inc. MALCOLM MacKINNON III, MSCL, Inc. BRIAN D. NEHRBASS, Newport News Shipbuilding ROBERT M. NOWAK, Michigan Molecular Institute DAVID F. OLLIS, North Carolina State University WILLIAM A. PETERS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALAN POWELL, University of Houston ADEL F. SAROFIM, Massachusetts Institute of Technology WALTER J. SCHRENK, Midland, Michigan SUSAN E.M. SELKE, Michigan State University CHARLES H. SINEX, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University WILLIAM TUMAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory KENNETH L. TUTTLE, U.S. Naval Academy N.C. VASUKI, Delaware Solid Waste Authority RICHARD L. WADE, Princess Cruise Lines THOMAS D. WAITE, University of Miami LILY Y. YOUNG, Rutgers University Navy Liaison Representatives RONALD DeMARCO, Office of Naval Research LAWRENCE KOSS, N452, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations CDR JOHN LANE WILLSON, USN, N45F, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Consultants SIDNEY G. REED, JR. JAMES G. WILSON Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

iv

NAVAL STUDIES BOARD DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Chair GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Harvard University, Vice Chair ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute NORVAL L. BROOME, The Mitre Corporation GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Electronic Systems SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Special Advisor ANTHONY J. DeMARIA, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc. JOHN F. EGAN, Lockheed Martin Corporation RALPH R. GOODMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University (through December 31, 1995) ROBERT HUMMEL, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences (as of January 1, 1996) SHERRA E. KERNS, Vanderbilt University (through December 31, 1995) DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Northstar Associates, Inc. (as of January 1, 1996) ALAN POWELL, University of Houston (through December 31, 1995) MARA G. PRENTISS, Jefferson Laboratory, Harvard University HERBERT RABIN, University of Maryland JULIE JCH RYAN, Booz, Allen and Hamilton HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California (as of January 1, 1996) KEITH A. SMITH, Vienna, Virginia ROBERT C. SPINDEL, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington DAVID L. STANFORD, Science Applications International Corporation H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University J. PACE VanDEVENDER, Sandia National Laboratories VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology BRUCE WALD, Arlington Education Consultants Navy Liaison Representatives PAUL G. BLATCH, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations RONALD N. KOSTOFF, Office of Naval Research RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY (DIXIE) GORDON, Information Officer ANGELA C. LOGAN, Project Assistant

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

v

COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS ROBERT J. HERMANN, United Technologies Corporation, Chair STEPHEN L. ADLER, Institute for Advanced Study PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan SYLVIA T. CEYER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, W.R. Grace and Co. JOHN H. HOPCROFT, Cornell University RHONDA J. HUGHES, Bryn Mawr College SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission KENNETH I. KELLERMANN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory KEN KENNEDY, Rice University THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology JEROME SACKS, National Institute of Statistical Sciences L.E. SCRIVEN, University of Minnesota LEON T. SILVER, California Institute of Technology CHARLES P. SLICHTER, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ALVIN W. TRIVELPIECE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center CHARLES A. ZRAKET, The Mitre Corporation (retired) NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

vii

Preface

In response to a request by senior representatives of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Office of the Chief of Naval Research, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted an assessment of shipboard pollution control technologies. The Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control, operating under the auspices of the NRC's Naval Studies Board, was appointed to study, evaluate, and report on the various technological options available to the Navy in connection with compliance with the requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V of the MARPOL Convention as directed by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1902) and modified by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. Annex V classifies waste and sets conditions on the disposal of waste in the earth's waters. In addition, “Special Areas,” e.g., the Baltic Sea, are designated for stricter conditions of disposal. A number of Special Areas have been designated but are not yet in force, e.g., the Mediterranean and Greater Caribbean Seas, pending development of suitable shore infrastructure to accommodate the shipborne waste. Although naval ships are exempt from Annex V regulations, the U.S. Congress has directed, in the above legislation, that the U.S. Navy comply with them. Other navies around the world also are moving toward compliance. For the U.S. Navy, compliance implies finding feasible technologies (that may be fitted to all existing and planned Navy ships) that can eliminate discharge of plastic waste from all surface ships by December 31, 1998, and discharge of all nonfood solids from Navy ships in Special Areas by the year 2000 for surface ships and 2008 for submarines. The Navy's request called for the committee to evaluate the technology status, additional developments and testing required, the time frame for implementation, and estimates of costs for the various technological options. Additionally, the committee was asked to identify further technology development and strategies by means of which the Navy can achieve compliance and to make recommendations for research and development that may provide more advantageous compliance in the long term. The specific charge to the committee called for answers to the following questions: 1. What is the technical feasibility of eliminating, by 2000 for surface ships and 2008 for submarines, nonfood solid waste discharge from Navy ships operating in Special Areas? What is the feasibility of backfitting existing ships versus forwardfitting newly constructed ships? 2. What shipboard technologies or procedures will be needed to eliminate such discharges? • • • •

What is the status of the technologies? What additional development and testing are required? How soon might the technologies be ready for installation? How much might the equipment cost per ship?

3. What is the time frame for completing development and beginning shipboard installation of the new technologies? 4. What are the approximate costs to develop, purchase, and install the new technologies? 5. Accepting answers to Questions 1-4 as the study's number one priority, but recognizing that environmental restrictions on Navy ships and submarines may increase with time, what additional technologies and practices hold promise of ultimately permitting Navy ships to be discharge-free during the course of an average cruise?

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

PREFACE

viii

The study began in December 1994 and lasted approximately 9 months. During that time, the committee, which divided its effort among three groups (Mechanical Methods, Chemical Methods, and Long-Range Options and Systems/Operations), held the following meetings and visited numerous ships: • December 20-21, 1994, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting. Navy briefs. • January 21-22, 1995, in Port Everglades, Florida. Toured cruise line ship Regal Princess. • February 16-17, 1995, in Annapolis, Maryland. Site visit to examine Navy's plastics processor, pulpers, and membrane technology. • March 21-24, 1995. Some committee members participated in the Secretary of the Navy Guest Program on Environmental Issues. Visited USS Hyman Rickover, USS Laboon, and USS Theodore Roosevelt. Also visited land-based environmental facilities in Norfolk, Virginia, and at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. • April 11-13, 1995, in Washington, D.C. Vendor poster session. Advanced technology briefs. • April 10, 1995, in Norfolk, Virginia. Ship visits. Visited USS Narwhal, USS Yorktown, USS Saipan, USS Wasp, and USS Shreveport. • May 16, 1995, in Washington, D.C. Mechanical Methods Group meeting. • June 13, 1995, in Washington, D.C. Long-Range Group meeting. • June 28, 1995, in Washington, D.C. Chemical Methods Group meeting. • July 12, 1995, in Washington, D.C. Long-Range Group meeting. • July 25-26, 1995, in Irvine, California. Plenary meeting for full committee. The resulting report represents the committee's consensus view on the issues posed in the charge.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ix

Acknowledgments

The Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control feels a deep gratitude to the many individuals who provided all manner of assistance in the conduct of the study. U.S. Navy support is acknowledged in connection with tours of Navy ships and briefings on past and current Navy programs and the results of diverse studies relevant to the committee's mission. The Honorable John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, gave a number of committee members the privilege of an extensive tour of Navy ships and other facilities, which enabled first-hand observation of the complexities of Navy hardware and practice, as well as direct discussions with Navy personnel. The Honorable Elsie L. Munsell, Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (Environment and Safety), and RADM Luther F. Schriefer, USN, accompanied the group and provided information and insights. The group's tour began with a greeting and briefing by ADM William J. Flanagan, Jr., USN (Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet). The tour included memorable visits aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, at sea, the USS Laboon, and the USS Hyman Rickover. Special thanks go to RADM Kendall Pease, USN, and LT Christopher A. Dour, USN, for expert handling of tour arrangements. On a separate tour, committee members visited the USS Narwhal, the USS Saipan, the USS Shreveport, the USS Yorktown, and the USS Wasp. The committee thanks the officers and crews of all these ships for their hospitality and information imparted. The experiences were enjoyable and enlightening for committee members. Detailed briefings were provided by a group led by Ms. Munsell and Admiral Schriefer. Speakers included RADM W.F. Doran, CAPT R.L. Steinbrugge, CAPT S. Evans, Mr. Larry Koss, Mr. Arthur Smookler, Dr. Ronald DeMarco, and CDR M. Culberson. These speakers gave the committee a clear picture of Navy environmental programs related to the committee assignment. The committee was also given an introduction to and demonstration of Navy-developed environmental hardware at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, CarderockAnnapolis Division. Navy participants in this program included C. Alig, S. Gill, J. Grovhoug, A. Rodriguez, and N. Upton. These briefings were of great value to the committee. The committee wishes to thank all of the individuals involved. During the course of the study, briefings on advanced technology were provided by the following individuals: Larry Dubois, Advanced Research Projects Agency; Bruce Sartwell, Naval Research Laboratory; Craig Alig, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis Division; Klaus Schadow, Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake; and Jeffrey Surma, Battelle. These briefings were valuable in connection with understanding technologies that have an impact on future systems, particularly supercritical water oxidation, plasma arc technology, compact incineration, and vitrification. The Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control was fortunate that the Marine Board of the National Research Council completed a broad study of marine waste issues just in time to be of use to the committee. The report Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995) was prepared by the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, chaired by William R. Murden, Jr. (Murden Marine Ltd.) under the auspices of the Marine Board, Charles A. Bookman, Director. This report is strongly recommended for general background in connection with compliance issues. In this context, the committee was briefed by Charles Bookman and Larry Swanson (Waste Management Institute, State University of New York). The committee wishes to thank these individuals for their contributions. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the privilege of visiting the ship Regal Princess of the Princess Cruise Lines, Peter Ratcliff, President. This tour was arranged by committee member Dr. Richard Wade, and briefings on ship environmental systems were provided by Captain Cesare Ditel and Chief Engineer Piero Ferrero. The hospitality of Gian Paolo Marchi is acknowledged with pleasure. This tour gave the committee members direct observation of a state-of-the-art integrated system for management of marine waste.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

x

The committee is also grateful to the vendors of marine waste management equipment who gave generously of their time in providing information vital to the committee mission at a gathering at the National Research Council's Georgetown facilities in April 1995. The following companies and individuals participated: ABB Raymond, Ralph R. Ferrell; Allied Defense Industries, Inc. (representing Strachan & Henshaw), Terry Silampa; Brule CC&E, Robert T. Poe; Consolidated Defense Corporation, Joseph Longo; Deerberg Systems, Jochen Deerberg; Enercon Systems, David A. Hoecke; International Compactor, Michael J. Pierson; Leslie Technologies, James DeFore; Norsk Hydro Waste Treatment Systems, Johannes Adderhaugen, Bjorn Fossen; Plasma Energy Applied Technology, Edward F. Snow; ReTech, Richard C. Eschenbach; Somat, Aleda P. Loughman, Amelia Collins; Sonoma Research, Oleh Weres; and Ventomatic, Frank M. Hillery. Deerberg and Norsk Hydro kindly provided extensive information packages describing integrated systems in detail. The committee benefited from many other discussions with individuals in the field of marine waste management. Although the analyses and conclusions of this report are those of the committee, a great deal of information was provided by people and organizations not mentioned above. The committee is nonetheless grateful to these contributors. A special vote of thanks goes to CDR J. Lane Willson, USN, who provided important liaison services necessary during the information gathering phase of the study.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xi

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHIPBOARD POLLUTION CONTROL: THE U.S. NAVY AND MARPOL, ANNEX V RECOMMENDATIONS

1 1 6

1

INTRODUCTION FLEET OVERVIEW OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGERIAL ASPECTS TECHNOLOGY U.S. NAVY 1993 PLAN COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES OF OTHER NAVIES United Kingdom Germany U.S. COAST GUARD COMPLIANCE PLAN

8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12

2

MECHANICAL METHODS SHREDDERS AND COMPACTORS PULPERS FOOD CONTAMINATION MECHANICAL PROCESSING EQUIPMENT

13 13 14 15 15

3

INCINERATION INTRODUCTION APPLICABILITY OF INCINERATION TO NAVY VESSELS FACTORS IN THE USE OF INCINERATION Feed Systems Incinerator Grates Combustion Chambers Cooling Systems Emissions Health and Air Quality Concerns Obstacles to Incineration SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INCINERATION OPTION

18 18 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 23 23 23

4

LONG-RANGE OPTIONS: COMPETITION FOR INCINERATION ALTERNATIVE DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES/COMPETITORS FOR INCINERATION Pyrolytic Methods Oxidative Methods Shipboard Compatibility DISCUSSION

25 25 25 27 28 29

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

CONTENTS

xii

5

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS APPROACH

31

6

LONG-RANGE OPTIONS: ADVANCED METHODS FOR HANDLING LIQUID WASTE FIVE SAMPLE METHODS/TECHNOLOGIES Biological Treatment of Wastewater Advanced Separations—Ultrafiltration Advanced Oxidation—Semiconductor Photocatalysis Electrohydraulic Cavitation Pulsed-Power Cold-Plasma Reactors SHIPBOARD COMPATIBILITY

34 34 34 34 35 36 37 38

7

WASTE HANDLING ON SUBMARINES

41

REFERENCES

44

APPENDIX A

WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION

47

APPENDIX B

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PACKAGING REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES Shipping Containers Soft Drinks Food Packaging Nonfood Packaging SUMMARY

49 49 49 50 50 50 51

APPENDIX C

AIR EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS OF SHIPBOARD INCINERATOR EMISSIONS EPA STANDARDS FOR MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS PROTOCOL FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM NAVY SHIPBOARD INCINERATORS GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM PLASTICS COMPACTORS: R&D NEEDS POLLUTANT DISPERSION IN THE MARINE BOUNDARY LAYER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

52 52 52 54 54 55 56 56

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

Executive Summary

Shipboard Pollution Control: The U.S. Navy and MARPOL, Annex V The Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control was formed under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, based on discussions between U.S. Navy and National Research Council representatives. The issues involved in shipboard pollution control are a complex mixture of Navy management, congressional mandate, international agreements, environmental community concerns, and technology. The committee as a whole was chosen for its expertise in technology. The first term of reference for the study poses the following question: “What is the technical feasibility of eliminating, by 2000 for surface ships and 2008 for submarines, nonfood solid waste discharge from Navy ships operating in Special Areas?” 1 The Special Areas referred to are defined in the international agreement on Marine Pollution, MARPOL, with specific reference to Annex V, which covers nonfood marine pollution solid waste. Naval ships are exempt from MARPOL, but the U.S. Congress required compliance by the U.S. Navy in the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 as modified by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. Various deadlines and extensions have been applied, with the latest deadlines those given in the above question. Special Areas already designated include the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the Antarctic Ocean. Special Areas expected to be designated in the future include the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Under Annex V, the nonfood solid waste materials that are controlled are as follows: • • • •

Paper and cardboard (hereinafter referred to as paper), Metal, Glass (including crockery and similar materials), and Plastics.

None of these materials may be discharged overboard in Special Areas. Plastics may not be discharged in the ocean anywhere. The quantities of these materials generated on Navy ships are given in Table ES.1. These numbers are very approximate and can be expected to vary significantly from ship to ship. An “intrinsic volume” was estimated from densities (i.e., densities as recorded in handbooks of physical properties of materials) of the various material classes and the weights. Generally waste materials are received admixed with air to a considerable extent, and the volume occupied may be larger than the “intrinsic volume” by a factor of 10 to 30. By crushing, shredding, and compacting, the volume of nonfood solid waste can be brought down to about twice the “intrinsic volume.” The committee refers to this volume as the compacted volume, and it is an important factor in consideration of shipboard space needed for storage of waste materials. Note that the compacted volume is 78 percent paper and 14 percent plastic, figures that identify these materials as good targets for source reduction and destruction when storage space is tight.

1 Annex

V does cover food waste, but discharge is allowed even in Special Areas beyond 12 miles from shore if the food waste is unground or beyond 3 miles if comminuted (i.e., ground up to pieces smaller than 1 inch). Other waste streams, e.g., black water, gray water, bilge water, oily rags, and medical waste, that could be managed along with Annex V materials in an integrated system are discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Table ES.1 Quantities of Materials Generated on Navy Surface Ships WEIGHT ESTIMATED COMPACTED VOLUME Material Paper 1.1 lb/person/day 0.056 ft3/person/day Metal 0.5 lb/person/day 0.005 ft3/person/day Glass 0.1 lb/person/day 0.001 ft3/person/day Plastics 0.2 lb/person/day 0.010 ft3/person/day T OTAL 1.9 lb/person/day 0.072 ft3/person/day

In its 1993 program plan (U.S. Navy, 1993), the Navy considered the use of compactors as an interim solution, and the committee views this technology as one that should be reexamined to help achieve compliance before 2000. A study of the effect of systematic, fleetwide use of compaction, similar to the recent Center for Naval Analyses study (Speer, 1995), would be valuable in this connection. A good strategy for minimizing the amount of waste that must be stored is to leave as much packaging as possible on the dock. Submariners have achieved a significant reduction in this area, and the USS Kamehameha has reported (U.S. Navy, 1995) waste generation of only 0.56 lb/person/day or about 0.028 ft3 of compacted volume, a reduction of about 60 percent relative to quantities generated on surface ships. This approach is a good first step in any waste reduction program, and it has been used to some extent on Navy surface ships. The problem assigned to the committee was to identify and evaluate the technologies that will make Navy management of nonfood solid waste under Annex V as effective as possible. Analysis was carried out in terms of mechanical, incineration, and long-range options, and these approaches are discussed in detail in Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 6. Mechanical methods are intended to minimize the volume of waste that must be stored until it can be off-loaded to other ships for shore disposal or recycling or can be discharged outside Special Areas. Incineration is intended to destroy the organic waste, and long-range options include advanced techniques that may eventually supercede incineration. It must be decided at the outset whether the waste streams will be separated or processed mixed. Paper can be incinerated with little ash. Metal and glass waste, on the other hand, are not burnable. Plastic burns readily and can be burned with quite acceptable emissions, notwithstanding environmental objections to incineration of plastics at sea (NRC, 1995). These waste streams may be kept separate to enable recycling of one or more types of material. In some ports, separated waste may be more acceptable for shore disposal. If the Annex V waste materials are contaminated with food, the problem is particularly difficult. Although ground-up food waste can be put into the water even in Special Areas (outside the 3-mile limit), food-contaminated solids are subject to Annex V restrictions. Food-contaminated solids are a problem to store because of odors and sanitation factors. This fact could influence the waste management technologies chosen by the Navy. Currently available compactors, shredders, crushers, pulpers, and other processors enable the conversion of voluminous waste to compacted waste. These machines are available in robust models, and they do not require large amounts of space. For example, a station capable of compressing and crushing the waste for a large ship could be accommodated in a room 10 ft × 20 ft × 8 ft. Additional space to accommodate crew access and temporary storage of incoming waste materials would more than double the floor area required. The cost of commercial apparatus to equip the station could range from $100,000 to more than $200,000. Storage volume of the order of 0.1 ft3/person/day between off-loading would be required. If the waste is contaminated with food, the waste would need some form of odorproof packaging (of high integrity). Only the Navy can decide whether this space is available for this purpose. Whether the waste is to be stored for the duration of a mission (as long as 60 days for surface ships) or could be

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

periodically off-loaded to combat logistics force ships is another matter that only the Navy can answer. Issues of flammability must also be addressed. Officer and crew training issues must be addressed as well. Even so, the committee believes that diligent pursuit of waste management by mechanical means could provide a route to compliance with Annex V for many or all Navy surface ships by the year 2000. Incinerators are available now that could play a central role in compliance with Annex V. These incinerators have automatic feed, combustion control, and ash-handling equipment. They have proven to be important elements in the cruise line industry's success in complying with Annex V requirements. These units cost about $300,000 for one providing large-ship capability, and they occupy significant space, perhaps 10 ft × 24 ft × 8 ft. Incinerators sized for smaller ships are smaller and less expensive. Incinerators require duct access to stacks. Waste may be shredded or otherwise mechanically processed before being put into the incinerator. The Navy has many ships equipped with incinerators but has no experience with the modern class of incinerator discussed in this report. The committee recommends that the Navy investigate modernization of its existing incinerators. The committee urges the Navy to gain experience and begin naval architecture studies in connection with the installation and operation of modern incineration systems. All classes of ship for which compliance with Annex V is expected to be a problem should be included in these considerations. The committee doubts that the Navy can acquire sufficient experience with modern incineration equipment to achieve complete Annex V compliance by this route by the year 2000. Equipment in various sizes and formats is available commercially, but gaining experience, arranging procurement, and getting the ships in and out of refitting centers would require more than the available time. It is likely that important naval architecture studies can be completed and some number of ships fitted for incinerator operation before the deadline. The high cost and potentially significant space accommodation imply considerable redesign and backfitting. Even so, the appeal of incineration as a keystone technology for all shipboard pollution control is so strong for surface ships that the committee recommends that a substantial program be initiated. The incinerator is particularly valuable in dealing with food-contaminated waste. Food-contaminated paper and plastic can be readily burned. Food-contaminated metal and glass would emerge from the incinerator little changed but cleansed of the food. This treatment would ease storage and could make the waste more acceptable for landfill disposal. Some commercial incinerators are designed to accept unsorted waste streams, including paper, metal, glass and plastic, and food. It is necessary to provide for handling much larger “ash” loads in this mode of operation. The option to separate plastic waste is open. Beyond the Annex V materials, a further major advantage of incineration is the ability to destroy food waste, bilge oil, gray water and black water solids, oily rags, medical waste, classified documents, and so on. With careful management of air emissions and solid residues (ash, metal, and glass), the ship can become entirely friendly, from an environmental point of view. The committee strongly recommends that the Navy pursue an integrated system for the management of all waste streams rather than seek piecemeal solutions for the individual waste classes. This will enable the Navy to install cost-effective equipment and procedures to comply with present requirements and prepare a smooth transition to compliance with future restrictions as they develop. Incineration has been subjected to criticism by the environmental community, and future regulation of air emissions can be expected to be increasingly strict. The class of modern incinerator recommended in this report for shipboard use is well adapted to provide acceptable emissions by present standards and will meet or can be adapted to meet reasonable future standards. Air emissions will require continued attention, but the technology is available for compliance. Among potential pollutants that should be considered for control, the following are important already: • Nitrogen and sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride;

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• • • •

4

Metals such as lead, chromium, copper, manganese, cadmium, and mercury; Smoke, particulates, and dust; Environmental estrogens such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins; and Pathogens.

It would be a false economy to adopt incineration technology that could not control emissions of these and other pollutants. However, the technology is available and with continued research and development will continue to improve. In the fullness of time, advanced destruction technologies may replace incineration of the treated waste stream. There are so many candidates here that the committee was forced to limit discussion to specific examples that give a flavor of what is possible. Potential advantages of the newer technologies include smaller and lighter units, reduced hazardous emissions, production of a favorable “ash” form, and ultimately lower cost and greater convenience. There are considerable technical challenges in achieving these advantages over incineration for wastes of diverse solid composition. Note also that none of these methods has been demonstrated in the marine environment. Time scales for implementation in the Navy environment should be measured in terms of several years to decades, and it is too early to estimate costs. The advanced technologies under consideration as substitutes for incineration include plasma arc, supercritical water oxidation, molten metal reduction, molten salt processing, and vitrification. A number of these processes are already receiving Navy support, including plasma arc and supercritical water oxidation (supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency [ARPA]). The committee urges the Navy to maintain support of research as appropriate and to encourage commercialization when results are sufficiently favorable. At this time, the committee cannot discern advantages over incineration, but this could change. Additional advanced technologies relevant to integrated systems in connection with treatment of liquid waste include semiconductor photocatalysis, electrohydraulic cavitation, pulsed-power cold-plasma reactors, membrane separations, and biological treatments. Technology options for waste management on surface ships are outlined in Table ES.2. Options for managing non-Annex V waste in an integrated system are given in Table ES.3. The committee strongly recommends long-range planning based on an integrated system for handling all of a ship's waste streams. Such planning will require a significant commitment on the part of the Navy, including space accommodation aboard, crew training, and enhancement of the status of the assignment. Incineration is the keystone technology of this approach in the near and intermediate term. The committee is convinced that an integrated system is the approach that will result in the most environmentally favorable form of pollution control at reasonable cost. The terms of reference for the study raise the issue of backfitting existing ships for pollution control and designing waste management systems into new design ships. For the next few years, the Annex V compliance problem is overwhelmingly one of backfitting because only a small fraction of the fleet will be of new construction. In either case, however, the basic issue is the same: how much warfighting equipment can be sacrificed in order to accommodate waste management facilities? This question can be answered only by the Navy. The waste-handling equipment is available, but it is costly, will take up space, and will require the attention of trained personnel. The compromises implied are not easy. Submarines were seen as a particularly difficult problem by the legislators, indicated by the more extended deadline 2008. However, the submariners have made great strides toward compliance with Annex V by employing outstanding management and attention to detail, and it may be possible for submarines to achieve compliance before 2008 without resorting to high-technology methods. As noted above, waste has been minimized by leaving much of the packaging on the dock and carefully selecting the form of supplies. A 60 percent reduction has been demonstrated. Submarine missions can last for months, but in that time no new supplies are brought on board. Therefore, it is feasible to store waste materials in sealed containers in areas occupied by the supplies at the outset. The committee sees no better

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

alternative to this approach, given that incineration and the more advanced technologies are not viewed as suitable for submarine application. The additional development and testing of the equipment recommended in this report pose another question that requires Navy input. Both the mechanical compaction apparatus and the modern incinerators have been in commercial production for some years, and extensive marine experience has been demonstrated with positive results. The committee is conscious of the unusual demands placed on Navy ships, and additional testing would be prudent. Both classes of equipment are available as catalog items. In addition to installation of the equipment, a vigorous and continuing program to train officers and crew in the operation and maintenance of the apparatus and in related handling logistics is required. A change in culture, attitude, and sensitivity is implied. Table ES.2 Options for Management of Annex V Waste on Surface Ships NEAR TERM INTERMEDIATE TERM MATERIAL Not Contaminated with Food Paper Incineration as available/ Incineration Mechanical compaction/ Storage/Transfer for shore disposal or ocean dumping outside Special Areas/ Recycling possible Metal Shred/Storage/Transfer for Same as near term shore disposal or ocean dumping outside Special Areas/ Recycling possible Glass Crush/Storage/Transfer for Same as near term shore disposal or ocean dumping outside Special Areas/ Recycling possible No ocean dumping/ Same as near term/Incineration Plastics Compaction with Navyan option on more ships developed plastics processor or incineration as available Contaminated with Food Paper As above/Odorproof Incineration packaging of high integrity required for storage Metal Clean food off/Treat as above/ As above/Option of putting metal If not cleanable, odorproof through incinerator to remove packaging of high integrity food contamination/Obviates required packaging Glass Clean food off/Treat as above/ As above/Option of putting glass If not cleanable, odorproof through incinerator to remove packaging of high integrity food contamination/Obviates required packaging As above/Odorproof Same as near term/Incineration Plastics packaging of high integrity an option on more ships required for storage of plastics processor discs or incineration as available

LONG RANGE Other destruction

Same as near term/Possible other destruction treatment Same as near term/Possible other destruction treatment Other destruction an option

Other destruction As above/Option of using other destruction to remove food contamination/Obviates packaging As above/Option of using other destruction to remove food contamination/Obviates packaging Other destruction an option

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

Table ES.3 Integrated System—Additional Capabilities SECOND /FINAL STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE OF W ASTE Food waste Dewatering Incineration Biological treatment/Dewatering Incineration of sludge Black water 1 Gray water 2 Dewatering Incineration of residue Bilge water Oil separation Incineration of oil Oily rags Incineration – Medical waste Incineration – Incineration – Classified documents 1 Black water is human waste from latrines and urinals. 2 Gray water is the effluent from showers, sinks, laundry, dishwashers, the galley, the scullery, and so on.

The cost estimates given earlier do not include testing and installation costs. The committee has been told informally that the final cost of installed equipment on ships is typically seven times the supplier price. As it is envisioned that the entire fleet is to be equipped, although not all classes by the same technology, it is suggested that there should be economies of scale that could moderate the usual installation markup. Recommendations 1. Source Reduction: Source reduction of waste materials, already practiced by the Navy, is endorsed as an important step toward Annex V compliance. It is recommended that the Navy set specific, demanding goals for source reduction for surface ships and submarines covering the periods up to 2000 and to 2008, respectively. 2. Integrated Systems Approach: It is recommended that the Navy adopt an integrated systems approach to manage all shipboard waste streams. It is now technically feasible to install and operate systems that will comply with Annex V restrictions and handle other waste streams as well. Avoidance of a piecemeal approach should offer economies of space and investment. The systems chosen may differ from one class of ship to another, but key elements will be common: • On-board reduction of the volume of waste streams by mechanical compaction, incineration, and other destructive technologies; and • On-board storage of waste for later transfer to shore facilities (either directly or by transfer to other ships) for landfill disposal or recycling or for legal ocean discharge outside Special Areas. 3. Mechanical Compaction: It is recommended that the Navy initiate a high-priority program to implement compaction and storage of Annex V waste streams to achieve compliance for surface ships by the year 2000. Commercial equipment exists in a variety of forms suited to the various Annex V waste streams. The Navy has developed its own equipment in this connection. Appropriate steps must be taken to eliminate any potential fire hazards. 4. Incineration: It is recommended that the Navy obtain experience with modern incinerator technology as a partial solution to waste management for Annex V compliance for surface ships by the year 2000

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

and as a keystone technology for waste management systems to serve the Navy for decades to come. This implies acquisition, testing, installation, and operation under conditions typical of Navy missions. Both installation of new incinerators and modernization of existing incinerators are recommended. To be meaningful in the year 2000 time frame, these matters must be considered in parallel rather than sequentially. Commercial equipment exists in a range of sizes, and use in the marine environment has been demonstrated. Incineration research and development should be encouraged and supported. 5. Advanced Systems: It is recommended that the Navy continue its program of research into advanced waste destruction technologies that may eventually augment or supercede incineration as the principal shipboard reduction technology. At this time, there is no single candidate recommended for development. Encouragement and support of commercial technology development are recommended. Further development of technologies for liquid waste management is recommended in connection with an integrated system to handle all waste streams. 6. Shipboard Discharge and Emission Characterization: It is recommended that the Navy continue and enhance investigations (including measurement, monitoring, and modeling) of the human health and environmental effects of materials discharged and emitted from ships in connection with waste management. 7. Submarines: Existing source reduction programs are endorsed and recommended for the entire submarine fleet. Development of sealed storage containers for compacted trash, especially foodcontaminated trash, should be carried through. Installation of garbage disposals (i.e., devices used to grind up food) fleetwide is recommended.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

8

1 Introduction

The U.S. Navy, by action of the Congress is directed to comply with regulations set forth in the international agreement MARPOL Annex V (MARPOL 73/78). The Committee on Shipboard Pollution Control was convened by arrangement between the Navy and the National Research Council to evaluate technology options that are relevant to Navy compliance with Annex V for surface ships by 2000 and submarines by 2008. In addition, the committee was asked to consider technology implications of future regulations. MARPOL Annex V places limits on ocean discharge of solid waste materials. Plastics may not be discharged into the sea at all. Paper (including cardboard), metal, and glass may not be discharged in Special Areas. Special Areas include the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Greater Caribbean (including the Gulf of Mexico), and other important areas. In this report, the committee focuses on technologies that will help and enable the Navy to comply with these restrictions. .

Fleet Overview The U.S. Navy has a highly diverse fleet of ships, consisting of a variety of ship classes spanning a broad range of sizes and missions. There are about 373 ships in 1995. The largest combat ships are the aircraft carriers and the amphibious assault ships. Crew sizes are quite large, 5,000 to 6,000, including air wing, for the carriers and about 3,000, including troops, for the amphibious assault ships. A number of combat ship classes fall into the mid-size range with lengths of 400 to 600 ft. These classes include a number of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and some of the smaller amphibious warfare ships. Crew sizes are on the order of several hundred, and the amphibious ships can carry about 900 troops. A number of these ships will also support limited helicopter air operations. Combatant submarines fall into two major classes: attack submarines (SSNs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The SSNs are smaller, with lengths of about 350 ft and crew sizes on the order of 130, and the SSBNs have lengths of about 560 ft and crew sizes of about 150. All combatant submarines are nuclear powered. In addition, there is a wide range of support and special mission ships, including fleet replenishment, refueling and repair, minehunting, salvage, and surveillance. The size of these different classes can range from around 100 ft to over 500 ft, and the number of crew personnel varies from fewer than 100 to more than 500. The various classes of ships share many characteristics. Combat ships are designed for maximum combat effectiveness, and supporting ships are designed to permit achievement of that goal. A variety of factors are important, including reliability, maintainability, and capability to operate under extreme adverse weather conditions. Ability to sustain battle damage and continue to operate effectively is a key criterion for warships. Navy ships have a rather long life cycle. A new class of ship typically requires 2 to 8 years for concept and feasibility studies and design. Construction can then take another 5 to 8 years. Once delivered, the ship in-service lifetime extends for another 30 to 35 years, with periodic overhaul and backfitting of major new systems. Typically, only a few ships are added to the fleet each year. The long life cycle and slow turnover have implications for waste treatment. Most of the ships in the current fleet will be in service well into the next century. Thus, installation of equipment for environmental compliance will to a large extent have to be accomplished by backfitting. The

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

9

environmental systems must be compatible with current ship space, weight, power, and other variables, which may limit the types of waste treatment facilities that can be used. Operational Environment The operational environment of warships is quite different from that of commercial ships. Typical mission duration is 30 to 60 days for surface ships and several months for submarines. Passenger and cargo ships are rarely out of port for more than a few days at a time. Consequently, storage of wastes on Navy ships is much more of a problem than it is for commercial vessels. Storage of significant amounts of flammable waste material (paper and plastic) is a problem in any case but a particular problem in combat operations. Navy surface ships are resupplied at sea frequently (perhaps twice a week). There is a regular stream of foodstuffs, fuel, and other materials coming aboard with their accompanying packaging materials. Thus, the waste material continues to build up while the ships are at sea. The kinds of waste materials depend to some extent on class of ship. For example, amphibious support ships have extensive medical facilities to handle injured troops and therefore generate quantities of medical waste. Repair ships tend to generate wastes similar to those from industrial plants. In general, however, Annex V wastes will be similar from ship to ship and the quantities will scale with the ship's complement. Submarines are quite different from surface ships. Typically, submarines deploy with all required supplies and do not have at-sea replenishment, often returning to the same port at the end of their tour. Because of their serious space limitations, submarine crews will generally eliminate all unnecessary packaging material as the ship is loaded. Other major differences between surface ships and submarines come from the very different environment in which they operate. Surface ships have access to the atmosphere, providing unlimited amounts of air to support incineration of wastes and providing a sink for the discharge of combustion gases. In submarines, air is limited and incineration of waste impractical. Space aboard submarines is especially tight, and acoustic silence is a fact of life. For these reasons, submarine management has carefully controlled the amount and kind of material brought on board. Managerial Aspects In addition to the technological methods that can be used to enable compliance with Annex V, there are a number of significant issues that are essentially management matters. Although the committee was brought together for technical input, several members have management experience in environmental areas, both civilian and Navy. Therefore, in this section the committee makes observations that are not technological in character but are important in the successful management of the technologies chosen to achieve compliance. A successful program for environmental compliance will be difficult to achieve unless clear-cut commitment and objectives are articulated from the top of the Navy command, supported by all levels of officers and implemented by orientation and training of officers and crew. The importance of the environmental mission must be reflected in visible aspects of the naval organization. In a sense, environmental responsibility has become the price of access to waters in which the Navy must provide a forward presence under peacetime conditions. In view of the ship-specific nature of environmental compliance, captains should receive environmental orientation just before they assume command of a ship. The orientation should cover all aspects of the ship's environmental systems and include other officers, specifically the ship's engineering and supply officers. Noncommissioned officers should also be involved. The command staff should be made aware of Annex V regulations and of details and limitations of the ship's waste management system. This is akin to what chemical industry plant managers have to master before being given responsibility for a chemical plant's emissions. A formal orientation program allows the captain and the principal officers to issue appropriate directives to the crew and makes a statement about the captain's support for the program. At the same time, training and tracking programs should be initiated.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

10

It is suggested that environmental commitment will require that the Navy establish a respected cadre of specifically trained officers. Concentrating responsibility in a single environmental officer and providing considerably more training and fundamental background for that individual should yield benefits. In chemical and manufacturing plants, companies have set up environmental protection groups and assigned specialists to assist plant managers. The Navy could make it attractive for technically oriented naval personnel to attend programs on environmental training. Subject matter could include: • • • • • • •

Law and regulations, International commitments and related issues, Equipment testing and maintenance, Environmental policy, Shipboard testing of water and air emissions, Waste stream characterization, and Advances in environmental technology.

The fleet has substantial installations of waste management equipment aboard today, and more are coming. Establishment of effective management teams and provision of training and instruction are key issues required for long-term compliance with Annex V and future regulations. The chemical and airline industries make good use of videotape courses for personnel, both for employees assigned to new systems and as reinforcement for continuing employees. Tapes could show details of proper operation of waste management systems as well as critical aspects of safe storage of flammable materials. The Navy could also make good use of goals for source reduction for each ship. This will entail keeping records of waste generated in a standard format. As this database develops, it can be used for performance metrics, for benchmarking with other ships, and as an incentive for source reduction of waste materials. Technology As presented in this report, two principal approaches to Annex V compliance appear promising. First, compaction and storage of wastes for landfill disposal or ocean discharge outside Special Areas for paper, metal, and glass can be implemented rather quickly. The Navy is already implementing a program for compacting plastic by means of a Navy-developed processor. The resulting discs will be stored for shore disposal. Commercial equipment exists and space requirements are modest for many ships. Second, incineration can reduce the volume of Annex V waste by an order of magnitude and offers an option that can lead to compliance while minimizing storage and transfer. At this time, the Navy has 107 incinerators installed on ships; and with modernization and operational improvement, they can probably burn 70 percent of the total waste paper and plastic generated by the Navy at sea. In the longer term, advanced technologies (e.g., plasma arc or supercritical water oxidation) are being developed that could replace incineration. Based on successful implementation in the cruise line industry, the committee has great enthusiasm for incinerator-based integrated systems that can manage Annex V wastes, food waste, black water, gray water, bilge water, and other waste streams. It is clear that the Navy problem is more complex than that of the cruise line industry, but the committee believes that some form of integrated system can be implemented in the intermediate term, say over the next 5 to 15 years. Existing technology for managing liquid wastes is well established, and a number of advanced technologies are being developed in this connection. Backfitting integrated systems will be a challenge of considerable dimension.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

11

U.S. Navy 1993 Plan The U.S. Navy's most recent plan was put forward in 1993 (U.S. Navy, 1993). In regard to Annex V waste, the plan called for the following: 1. Metal and glass were to be shredded, using Navy-developed shredders, and placed in sinkable cloth bags which were to be discharged into the sea. 2. Paper was to be made into a pulp along with food waste, using Navy-developed pulpers, and it was proposed to discharge the pulp into the sea. 3. Plastic was to be converted into discs, using the Navy-developed plastics processor, and stored on board for later transfer to shore facilities. The first two proposals, for paper, metal, and glass, violate the Annex V prohibition (as imposed on the Navy by the Congress) of solid discharge in Special Areas, and the plan was rejected by the U.S. Congress. The Navy is currently working on a new plan which is expected to be presented to the Congress in early 1997. Compliance Activities of Other Navies Naval ships are exempt from Annex V regulations, but some nations are moving toward compliance. The committee has not done a broad survey of international practice and plans, but some information is available for the United Kingdom and Germany. United Kingdom The Royal Navy plans to meet Annex V regulations when operationally possible by mechanical means. Specifications were established for a system that would process all ships' mixed garbage in a timely way, be operable by untrained crew, demonstrate high reliability over a 25-year life, and be modular in construction to facilitate installation on all ships, new and existing. The processed garbage must be in units that will sink in sea water in 5 minutes, not exceed 15 kg in weight, not exceed 450 mm in any dimension, and be suitable for 7 days' storage. A private firm anticipated the Royal Navy request and demonstrated, using private funding, a system that performed the required processing (Strachan & Henshaw, private communication, 1995). The basic unit consists of a combination shredder-compactor, with two stages of compaction. The waste is placed in a steel container, which is sealed. This system worked well for “dry” waste, that is, not food contaminated. The specifications handed down by the Royal Navy stated that plastic waste could contain food matter and the machine must seal the food waste without containerization to prevent the growth and spread of harmful bacteria for at least 45 days. To accomplish this, a special modification was made to melt the plastic surface while inside the compactor. On cooling, the plastic forms a thick skin (4 mm thick). Note that this heated chamber machine is very similar to the U.S. Navy-developed plastics processor. Each ship is to have two machines, one for dry waste and the other modified for plastic processing. A prototype unit was installed on a Royal Navy ship in 1994. The U.K. Ministry of Defense has placed orders for 12 installations on Royal Navy ships. The committee does not have specific Royal Navy plans for storage and transfer to shore facilities and dates for compliance. Note that the approach does not involve Royal Navy investment in apparatus development beyond issuance of performance specifications. Germany The German Navy also has plans to comply with the Annex V regulations, and Germany operates under much stricter environmental laws than other nations. Storage of uncompacted and separated waste

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INTRODUCTION

12

is mandatory for German vessels to facilitate recycling. About 7 days' storage is contemplated. Solid waste will be off-loaded at port or onto logistical support ships. No technology is involved. Incinerator technology is also being investigated for task group missions. This is apparently in the context of an integrated system, and only existing commercial technology is being studied. U.S. Coast Guard Compliance Plan As part of its effort to bring the Coast Guard fleet (about 228 ships 765 ft in length) into compliance with all existing and emerging regulations, laws, and international protocols, the U.S. Coast Guard has a plan and program (U.S. Coast Guard, 1994) relating to MARPOL Annex V. The current plan dated February 1, 1994, is broken down by ship type as follows: 1. The two existing icebreakers and the polar icebreaker under construction (crew size about 200) will have a waste-handling system to dispose of solid waste, plastics, and waste oil, consisting of an incinerator and trash compactor in one compartment and a pulper in another. A compact incinerator (Golar 500) (320 lb/h of 8,000 BTU/lb dry waste), continuous manual (sluice) feed now (to have automatic feeder later), has been under trial, and emissions measurements have been made by China Lake. 2. Large cutters (existing and new construction) will have a 2 ft × 2 ft × 6 ft commercial compactor (ship tested), a stand-alone unit, capable of serving a crew of about 200, and costing $5,000 to $10,000. Because these will be on weather decks, they are made of stainless steel. An incinerator will also be installed, probably only on larger cutters, if current trials are satisfactory and space is adequate, in addition to a small pulper if feasible. Pulpers (Navy-developed and commercial) will also be installed on large cutters to dispose of paper, dunnage, and food waste where allowed. 3. Small cutters will have small commercial compactors (< $1,000). The costs, including tests, acquisition, and installation, of the MARPOL V-related program are summarized in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Costs of U.S. Coast Guard Program TYPE Waste-handling system (3 ships) Large compactors (62) Incinerators (57) Pulpers (75) Small compactors T OTAL COST

Source: U.S. Coast Guard (1994).

COST ($MILLION ) 3.7 1.4 18 ($16 million for existing ships) 3.8 0.0174 (to be installed) ` 2 7 (or about $118,000/ship for 228 ships)

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MECHANICAL METHODS

13

2 Mechanical Methods

Shredders and Compactors Mechanical methods for waste management under consideration in this section are concerned with paper, metal, glass, and plastic, as regulated under Annex V in Special Areas. Mechanical methods are valuable in that they can reduce the volume of waste and convert it to a form that is more easily packaged, stored, and transported. The domestic trash compactor is becoming increasingly familiar and does not differ in concept from the compactors discussed in this section. For ease of handling, it is usually more convenient to have the material present in small pieces. This is accomplished by means of a shredder that crushes glass, tears metal cans apart, and shreds paper and plastic. The size-reduced material can be placed in bags or cans or baled for storage or transport. This material is also easily fed into a compactor. Shredders and compactors can deal with mixed waste or with individual waste types separately. If it is desired to keep aluminum separate for recycling, this component can be shredded, compacted, and packaged and stored apart from other waste. If ocean discharge outside Special Areas is planned, it will be necessary to separately process and store the plastic component. A shredder is a chamber containing robust counter-rotating shafts to which many cutters are attached. The machine will process paper, metal, glass, plastic, and other materials, rendering the waste into small, more or less uniform, pieces. Because of the power for destruction built into the machine, the design has interlocks that isolate the chamber during operation. A compactor is usually a piston or ram that is hydraulically driven. Most industrial compactors function in two stages (i.e., with two perpendicular rams operated sequentially) for greater volume reduction. Some compactors offer sanitizing; deodorizing; packaging in plastic, paper bags, or boxes; baling; and other options. For “dry” (i.e., not food-contaminated) Annex V waste, odor and sanitation problems do not normally occur. One commercial shredder-compactor combination machine can process and store the Annex V waste generated by a complement of 250 personnel over a 30-day mission. Processing and storage are accomplished in a 10 ft × 10 ft room. The processor itself has a footprint of 2 ft × 6 ft. One person can handle a 1-day accumulation in about 1 hour. One station of this kind could service the needs of frigates and other smaller vessels, and two stations could accommodate destroyers, cruisers, and other ships with complements of fewer than 500. The Navy has fewer than 100 ships that are larger than this. Larger ships could be served with more stations. A special kind of compactor, called a plastics processor, has been developed (both Navy and commercial). In this machine, the compression chamber is heated to melt the plastic, which is compressed and then cooled under pressure. This not only achieves the minimum attainable volume, but the resulting block or disc forms a plastic skin that encapsulates food contamination. The Navy is proceeding with a plan to install its plastics processor fleetwide. The plan involves storing the discs in odorproof bags for disposal ashore. The amount of volume reduction or compaction can be defined as the volume of unprocessed waste divided by the volume of processed waste. These numbers, particularly the volume of unprocessed waste, are elusive, since they depend on an unknown state of packing. The Navy reports (U.S. Navy, 1993) that unprocessed paper has a density of 6 lb/ft3. A loosely filled waste basket has a density of about 4 lb/ft3, consistent with the Navy number, and a book has a density of about 45 lb/ft3, very dense indeed. Waste paper might be compacted to about 20 lb/ft3 or 0.055 ft3/person/day assuming a compaction ratio of

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MECHANICAL METHODS

14

about 3. This corresponds to the compacted volume given in Table ES.1, 0.056 ft3/person/day, estimated by a different method. The agreement for metal and glass is less satisfactory, but the volume contribution of these materials is so small that the discrepancy is unimportant. The agreement for plastics is very good, 0.005 ft3/ person/day for the molded discs of the Navy plastics processor, and 0.010 ft3/person/day for compacted plastic. The total volume accumulated is about 0.07 ft3/person/day. These numbers should scale linearly with the size of the ship's complement and the length of the mission (between off-loading). The compacted volume of Annex V wastes for various classes of warship that will accumulate over a mission, i.e., the minimum volume of storage space that must be provided for compliance with Annex V, is given in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Minimum Volume of Storage Space for Compliance with Annex V Requirements COMPLEMENT MISSION (DAYS ) STORAGE VOLUME IMPLIED (FT 3) CLASS Frigate 230 30 480 Destroyer 300 30 630 Cruiser 400 30 840 Auxiliary (AD 41) 2,100 30 4,400 Carrier 6,000 60 25,000 1 Room

ROOM SIZE (FT ) 1 8×8 9×9 10 × 10 24 × 24 56 × 56

height of 8 ft is assumed.

Eight feet by eight feet seems quite modest, and 56 ft × 56 ft seems very large. Only the Navy can decide how much space can be made available for Annex V compliance, but the numbers are encouraging and the committee believes that shredding, compaction, and storage of all Annex V wastes might enable the Navy to comply with the prohibition of discharge in Special Areas for many and possibly all Navy ships by the year 2000. Fire prevention measures are a necessary feature of this strategy. Pulpers In its 1993 plan, the Navy proposed to process food, paper, and cardboard waste by “pulping.” With this technology, the waste material is reduced in size and entrained in water as a slurry that can be conveniently pumped from one place to another and discharged into the sea. In separate operations, water content can be reduced substantially (dewatered) to facilitate storage in regions where discharge is not allowed (i.e., within the 3-mile limit). This technology was not discussed above because food waste is not part of the committee's Annex V assignment and admixture of paper renders discharge a violation of Annex V in Special Areas. Nevertheless, this process is very attractive. It is not clear whether admixture of paper and cardboard in the discharge is or is not environmentally sound. The concept of the pulper is simple: cellulose products and/or food wastes are pulped into small pieces (less than one-fourth inch in the Navy implementation) and pumped overboard in a stream of seawater in the following manner (Drake et al., 1994). First, pulpable waste is saturated by seawater in a slurry chamber and pulped by blade action (the final product is about 2 percent solids). A junkbox catches nonpulpable items. Plastics inadvertently loaded into the pulper are retained in the pulping chamber until the machine is cleaned. Finally, the slurry is discharged into the ship's wake. The discharge rate from an aircraft carrier is about 200 gallons/minute (Swanson et al., 1995). The Navy has satisfactory experience with a prototype pulper on the carrier USS George Washington. It is expected that pulped waste will be mixed rapidly in the surface layer of the ocean above the seasonal pycnocline and persist there for periods of hours to days (Swanson et al., 1995). Some fraction

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MECHANICAL METHODS

15

will slowly sink to the seafloor or be accumulated by marine organisms. Some fraction will remain in suspension and in principle can be transported over long distances. The critical information needed to assess the impact of the discharge of shredded cellulose (i.e., paper and cardboard) into ocean waters involves effects on the biota. The persistence of cellulose in the sediments, especially under conditions of rather slow degradation, could bring about undesirable impacts on the biota. The concerns involve the effects of the shredded materials on organisms both in the water column and in the benthos. Little research has addressed this problem. A rather modest activity ($220,000 for the current year) is being supported by the Navy, but results are preliminary and the investigations will continue. Clearly, to have a convincing set of data as to the biological effects of discharged pulp wastes, much more extensive experimentation will be necessary. The committee endorses support of an experimental program (of viable size) designed to elucidate the biological impact of pulp waste. Even if environmental aspects of pulper operation can be resolved, operational characteristics of the equipment must be considered in assessing possible advantages offered by pulping. The apparatus should allow for the waste to be pulped and then stored before discharge, using water conservation technology, while the ship is within the 3-mile limit. Tanks for storage of the dewatered waste material need only be of modest size. It should also be noted that paper waste stored in pulped (and dewatered) form does not present a fire hazard. This stored pulped material can be incinerated as an option. Pulper technology offers promise of an inexpensive and effective way of husbanding cellulose and food waste from Navy vessels with only modest demands on space. Use of pulpers (commercially available or Navydeveloped) that allow for onboard storage (and thus controlled discharge or incineration) is worthy of further study. Demonstration of effective dilution, decomposition, and minimal impact on the ecosystem is essential. Food Contamination Contamination of Annex V waste streams with food waste can complicate the use of mechanical methods of waste management considerably. Waste that is contaminated with food can be processed in shredder-compactors, but storage of the compacted waste must be arranged to avoid odors, pathogens, and vermin. Paper storage bags are unsuitable in this connection. Plastic packaging may be adequate but it must have high integrity. Even a single opening could be disagreeable and dangerous. Sealed metal cans are probably satisfactory but should be tested for the integrity of the seal. Refrigerated storage, if available, could solve the problem. The committee does not have good information concerning whether Annex V waste streams are food contaminated. Glass jars and metal cans can presumably be washed before shredding. Fragmentary evidence indicates that plastic is the most urgent problem in this connection. The Navy has reported (Evans, 1994) that one-half of shipboard plastic waste is food contaminated. Plastic is often difficult to clean, as in the case of sheet and film form, for example. No information on contamination with food of paper has been found. It is probably desirable to process dry and food-contaminated waste in separate machines, and the product of the two shreddercompactors would be handled and stored differently. For this reason, special plastics processors have been developed that heat the charge, forming a plastic skin that encapsulates the food contamination. Even so, the Navy plans to place the blocks or discs in odorproof bags for storage. The blocks are said to be dry to the touch and easy to handle. Mechanical Processing Equipment Information on commercial and Navy-developed mechanical processing equipment is given in Table 2.2, Table 2.3, and Table 2.4.

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MECHANICAL METHODS

16

Table 2.2 Commercial Mechanical Processing Equipment VENDOR CAPACITY (LB/H ) TYPE Shredder Shredding Systems, 2,000 Inc. 1 3 ft3/15 sec Compactor International Compactor, Inc. 1 1,000 wet Pulper SOMAT 1 700 dry Shredder-compactor Strachan & Henshaw 440 Plastics processor 1 For

Strachan & Henshaw

Cooling limited

DIMENSIONS 12 ft × 3.5 ft × 4.5 ft 190 ft3 2 ft × 2 ft × 6 ft 25 ft3 4.3 ft × 2.2 ft × 4.7 ft 25 ft3 6.5 ft × 2.5 ft × 6.5 ft 106 ft3 6.5 ft × 2.5 ft × 6.5 ft 106 ft3

WEIGHT (LB ) 1,280

PRICE ($) 86,000

550

8,000

530

17,680

5,500

200,000

5,500

210,000

WEIGHT (LB ) 1,500 5,600

PRICE ($) – 105,000

5,000

65,000

each of these machines, larger models are available.

Table 2.3 Navy-developed Mechanical Processing Equipment TYPE CAPACITY (LB/H ) DIMENSIONS, FT2 INCL. OPER. ENVEL. Shredder 600 30 Pulper 1,000 wet (a small pulper has 100 been developed) 500 dry 30 96 Plastics processor

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

MECHANICAL METHODS

17

Table 2.4 Partial List of Equipment Vendors ADDRESS VENDOR NAME SOMAT 855 Fox Chase Coatsville, PA 19320 Tel. (610) 384-7000 Shredding Systems, Inc. 9760 S.W. Freeman Dr. Wilsonville, OR 97070 Tel. (503) 682-3633 Cumberland 100 Roddy Ave. S. Attleboro, MA 02703-7951 Tel. (508) 399-6400 Marathon 901 Industrial Park Rd. Dearfield, PA 16830 Tel. (800) 922-7062 Strachan & Henshaw Ashton House, P.O. Box 103 Ashton Vale Road Bristol, BS99 7TJ England Tel. (0117) 966-4677 International Compactor, P.O. Box 5918 Inc. Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 Tel. (803) 686-5503 Jacobson Companies 2445 Nevada Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 Tel. (612) 544-8781 Franklin Miller 60 Okner Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 Tel. (201) 535-9200 Norsk Hydro P.O. Box 44 N-3671 Notodden, Norway Tel. 47 35 01 71 00 Deerberg Systems

Moltkestrasse 6a D-26122 Oldenburg Germany Tel. 49-441-77 60 62

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT Pulpers, hydro dryers

SHIP INSTALLATION 150 to 160 pulpers installed in cruise ships

Shredders Shredders

At least seven shipboard installations for cruise liners No

Compactors

No

Waste-processing machine Shredder and two-stage compactor

Yes

Compactors

No

Crushers Hammermills Shredders Crushers Shredders

No

Complete shipboard waste management systems Pulpers Dewatering equipment Incinerators Complete shipboard waste management systems

No Yes

Yes

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INCINERATION

18

3 Incineration

Introduction The mechanical processing methods discussed in Chapter 2 are mainly concerned with reducing the amount of air admixed with the waste material and converting the waste material to a substance that can be stored and transported with minimal difficulty. In this chapter, the committee focuses on incineration. Incineration can virtually eliminate the volume of paper products and plastic found in the shipboard waste stream, thus reducing the compacted volume of waste for storage by an order of magnitude. For this reason, incineration must be considered an important technology in connection with Navy compliance with Annex V restrictions. Even so, the cost of the equipment is high and considerable shipboard space is required. For example, a large unit, capable of burning the paper and plastic waste generated on an aircraft carrier, would occupy more than 1,000 ft3 of space for the unit alone, and probably twice that much when auxiliary systems are included. The system cost would be more than $300,000, before installation. Systems for smaller ships would cost less and take up less space. Installation of incinerators also implies considerable effort in crew training and development of management procedures. Taking account of the capability and the cost, incineration is a promising technology for Annex V compliance for ships that will be assigned to lengthy missions in Special Areas. Furthermore, it is the central technology for an integrated system designed to handle all shipboard sources of pollution: Annex V materials, food wastes, medical wastes, and so on. In this context, incineration serves the near-, intermediate-, and longterm needs of the Navy. Incineration is a flexible method of waste destruction for flammable waste materials, and it has been fairly widely used for this purpose on board commercial vessels, with several thousand units having been installed worldwide. The Navy has extensive experience with shipboard incinerators of an older generation, and the committee has anecdotal information that the experience was not entirely satisfactory. In addition, there have been objections to the use of incineration both on land and at sea from some environmental groups. The incinerators discussed herein are of modern design and have automatic feed, automatically controlled combustion sequences, and automatic ash-handling features. The apparatus would not be recommended if safety and air emissions could not be guaranteed to meet current and presently established future standards. The committee believes that advanced commercial incineration equipment exists that can handle ship wastes with safety and with acceptable air emissions. The large volume reduction achievable—three-fourths of the Annex V volume by burning of paper alone—makes the method a major candidate. Plastic is also burnable and, for the plastic said to be in Navy waste, the combustion should be clean. By burning paper and plastics, a 90 percent volume reduction can be achieved. There is, however, a program to deal with Navy plastic waste by use of a specialized machine that molds the plastic into dense plastic discs for storage and later transfer for land disposal or recycling. This plastics processor achieves the nearly maximum volume reduction that can be obtained by mechanical means. Incineration of plastics leaves only a small amount of ash, probably less than 1 percent of the volume of the discs, that can be discharged into the ocean outside Special Areas. The relative merits of the two methods of plastic disposal are perhaps less important than the timing of availability. The Navy plastics processor has been tested and can be installed fleetwide to eliminate plastic ocean discharge for all surface ships by the year 2000. (The United Kingdom is already installing compactors and plastics processors in 12 Royal Navy ships.) Incineration will almost certainly take longer to implement in all Navy surface ships, although

Copyright © 1996. National Academies Press. All rights reserved.

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.

INCINERATION

19

there are 107 incinerators on Navy ships capable of burning 70 percent of the total Navy paper and plastic waste. For purposes of this discussion, the committee focuses on the capabilities of incineration in the context of the Annex V materials. Information provided by the Navy (U.S. Navy, 1993) is given in Table 3.1, which lists the amount of paper generated and the incinerator capacity for the various classes of ships. Aircraft carriers appear to have more than adequate capacity to burn all paper generated, as do a significant fraction of auxiliaries and amphibious ships (the numbers for the latter categories are ambiguous because the number of ships that will remain in commission after 1998 is uncertain). These incinerators may not provide features offered in more modern equipment (for example, automatic feed, automatic combustion controls, and ash-handling apparatus), but, in many cases, they could provide for the needs of their respective ships while operating well below incineration capacity. The total paper generated on an aircraft carrier over a mission comes to over 20,000 ft3 compacted, and this is more than an order of magnitude larger than the volume of a large incinerator. Thus, incineration of paper is justified on large ships with large complements and long missions. The other classes listed in Table 3.1 have no incinerator facilities. Additional information provided by the Navy (U.S. Navy, 1993) for these ships is included in Table 3.2. On the basis of available information on the sizes of small incinerators, the committee concludes that incineration could be justified except for the smallest ships; for the smaller ships, the best strategy could be compaction and storage of paper over the duration of the mission. The addition of metal, glass, and plastics in compacted form would increase the required storage volume by less than 25 percent, and the committee concludes that the rationale would be unchanged if all Annex V materials were handled by adding compaction and storage. Food waste contamination has not been considered in the foregoing argument. If the Annex V materials are contaminated with food waste, storage can become a problem because of the development of odors and possibly pathogens. If this is a problem, the case for installation of incinerators is much stronger. This factor, taken together with the benefits flowing from installation of an integrated system capable of handling all of a ship's waste streams, could increase the number of ships for which incineration is applicable. Table 3.1 Paper Generated by and Incinerator Capacity of U.S. Navy Ships NUMBER 1 COMPLEMENT MISSION DAYS INCINERATOR CAPACITY (LB/ CLASS H) Auxiliary 50 to 55 90 to 2,500 30 500 2 Cruiser 29 400 to 600 30 0 Carrier 11 5,800 to 6,300 60 1,000 Destroyer 83 300 to 400 30 0 Frigate 51 220 30 0 Amphibious 35 to 68 600 to 3,230 60 500 2 Mine 27 50 to 90 15 0 13 35 3 0 Patrol 1 Number of ships in commission after 1998. 2 Incinerator capacity on 40 of 50 to 55 auxiliary and 30 of 35 to 68 amphibious ships.

Source: U.S. Navy (1993).

PAPER GENERATED (LB/H )