Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 193
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century E Management of Waste and Derelict Fishing Gear1 Jenna R. Jambeck, Ph.D. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of New Hampshire OBJECTIVE Summarize the generally accepted state-of-the-art plastics disposal technologies that may have application to the management of waste fishing gear. INTRODUCTION The fishing gear waste stream comprises both nonoperational or otherwise unwanted gear that fishermen wish to dispose of and derelict fishing gear (DFG) that is recovered from the marine environment. To mitigate effects of marine debris pollution, DFG continues to be collected on a worldwide scale. Collection is occurring in remote and isolated areas such as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and Dutch Harbor, Alaska, as well as more populated areas like the New England coast. Because of the quantity and composition of this waste stream, management and disposal of the debris can be a challenge. For example, fishing gear is currently made of synthetic materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon 40, nylon 6, and nylon 66 (Dagli et al., 1990; Timmers et al., 2005). These synthetic materials do not biodegrade (e.g., microbes typically cannot utilize carbon in plastics to create carbon dioxide) and only physically degrade through the changing of the polymers through solar radiation 1 This appendix was prepared at the request of the committee. It has been edited for grammar and style; factual accuracy is the sole responsibility of the author.
OCR for page 194
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century and slow thermal oxidation (Gregory and Andrady, 2003), which slowly physically break down the plastics. However, even in smaller pieces, the plastic remains a persistent pollution problem. Though placing the debris in a landfill can be a potentially inexpensive and technologically feasible method of management, because the DFG does not biodegrade, the material occupies landfill airspace indefinitely. In isolated places like Dutch Harbor, this can fill landfills relatively quickly, which creates disposal problems for DFG as well as other wastes. The purpose of this appendix is to provide potential waste management options for fishing gear. Infrastructure related to waste management at ports and on ships has been previously addressed by the National Research Council (1995), which found that fishing vessels create the third largest quantity of waste (by mass) of the various categories of ships defined (behind recreational and day boats) with a generation rate of 1.85 kg per person per day. Recommendations from the National Research Council included a national infrastructure for the collection and management (recycling and disposal) of old DFG (National Research Council, 1995). Various options for management of waste on ships are outlined by Hutto (2001); however, this appendix specifically focuses on management of waste fishing gear. After a brief discussion of the composition of fishing gear and waste management, various management and disposal technologies (other than landfilling) for fishing gear, particularly DFG, are described. Table E.1 summarizes these various options and compares them based on their current applicability, feasibility, and requirements. COMPOSITION OF FISHING GEAR WASTE STREAM There has been extensive collection and identification of DFG throughout the world (Dagli et al., 1990; Kiessling, 2003; Timmers et al., 2005). Fishing gear was historically composed of natural fibers; nets were composed of cotton flax and hemp (Timmers et al., 2005). When invented, synthetic fibers had many advantages over natural fibers, including durability. This durability also makes DFG persist in the environment. Various studies have been conducted on the composition of DFG—primarily nets. Gregory and Andrady (2003) note that synthetic yarns used in fishing gear include nylon 6, nylon 66, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene chloride, and polyvinyl acetate. Dagli et al. (1990) collected 1,000 kg of DFG to examine the gear for potential recycling of plastic. Of the 1,000 kg collected, 550 kg represented 49 separate items, including individual nets, individual lines, net combinations, and net/line combinations. The nets were composed of nylon 6, nylon 66, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE); lines were composed of mostly polypropylene. The study also found that nylons could be coated with
OCR for page 195
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century TABLE E.1 Summary of Waste Management Options for Fishing Gear Management Option Cost (per ton)a Pre-Processing Requirements Current Technical Feasibilityb Feasibility in Remote or Small Locationc Scale in US Landfill <$30 to >$100 None 3 5* Full Recycling $60 Yes, size reduction (potentially shredding) and densification (bailing) 3 3 Full Combustion with Energy Recovery $40 to >$100 Possibly (shredding to make refuse-derived fuel), not needed for mass burn 3 2** Full Gasification Unknown Yes, 3-inch size 2 3 Demo-commercial Pyrolysis Unknown Yes, <1-inch size, ¾-inch size 2 3 Demo-commercial Plasma Arc Unknown Yes, unknown size 1 3 Demo-research aCosts vary widely and are dynamic. These are current estimates and ranges. Cost is regionally based and market based. Cost also does not include transportation. bScale: 3 = Excellent, proven technology currently in operation and taking waste fishing gear; 2 = Pilot/demonstration technology only in the United States and claims to be able to take waste fishing gear; 1 = Pilot/demonstration technology and ability to accept waste fishing gear unknown. cScale: 5 = Extremely feasible (in existence); 4 = Very feasible; 3 = Seems feasible, but currently not in existence in remote area; 2 = Not very feasible; 1 = Unfeasible. * Landfills in remote and small areas are filling up, which is making them less feasible. ** Combustion with energy recovery may not have the required waste input to justify construction of a facility in a small or remote location.
OCR for page 196
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century asphaltic and alkyd-type coatings. The nylon and polyethylene did not show signs of degradation (not biodegradation, but polymer change); however, the polypropylene material did show changes resulting from degradation (Dagli et al., 1990). Other references to DFG include a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands database which describes nets as consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, and nylon 40 (Timmers et al., 2005). Marine debris and DFG in Alaska reportedly include the plastics already referenced, as well as foamed plastics (floats or large blocks) (Bob King, personal communication). WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a waste management hierarchy (Figure E.1). This hierarchy states that waste should be managed in the following order to conserve landfill space resources and potentially reduce carbon emissions: (1) reduce the generation of wastes, (2) reuse and recycle, (3) compost, (4) convert wastes to energy, and (5) landfill. Other portions of the waste management structure (e.g., transportation) should be considered when examining options as well; however, this often necessitates a more detailed assessment such as a life cycle assessment of the waste management options. Other management options that beneficially utilize plastic are logical since it does not biodegrade in a landfill environment and landfill gas cannot be captured from it for beneficial use. RECYCLING Recycling of fishing gear has focused on nets (Dagli et al., 1990, 1995; Labib and Maher, 1999). Recycling can take two forms. The synthetic net material can be processed and used as the raw material in the manufacture of the same type of plastic (e.g., HDPE or nylon). In addition, the nets may also be used as fibrous reinforcement for other synthetic materials or used in other constructed compounds, such as asphalt. There are several examples of each of these methods in the literature, as well as a facility that processes and recycles nets currently located in the State of Washington. Through initial research into the composition and characterization of fishing nets, Dagli et al. (1990) found that extrusion recycling (using the nets as a feedstock) was feasible. Though some of the coatings on the nets needed to be further examined, it was still shown that the nylon 6, nylon 66, and HDPE had not degraded upon exposure to the marine environment and could be recycled into other useful products. The polypropylene line had degraded and was not evaluated for recycling in this research.
OCR for page 197
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century FIGURE E.1 The Environmental Protection Agency’s waste management hierarchy (used with permission from the Environmental Protection Agency). In subsequent work, Dagli et al. (1995) processed nets for recycling and suggested a design for a processing facility for nets. Melt reprocessing was investigated, which encompassed cleaning of the nets, size reduction, melt extrusion and filtering, modification, and injection molding. The nylon 6, nylon 66, and HDPE were blended and utilized in composites that were comparable in mechanical properties to commercially available materials. In companion research, the nets were used as organic fibrous reinforcement in polymeric matrices. Nylon 6 and nylon 66 from the nets were compounded with a thermoplastic polyurethane matrix at temperatures below the melting point of nylons. It was found that good adhesion occurred between the fibers and the thermoplastic polyurethane matrix and also improved physical properties such as stiffness, shore hardness, and abrasion resistance (Dagli et al., 1995). Fishing net fibers were also tested as an additive to asphalt pavement by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. While carpet and car seat fibers did not work successfully in asphalt pavement, fishing nets did. The fibers from the fishing nets could be uniformly and consistently incorporated into the asphalt mixture without segregation or introduction of excessive air voids (Labib and Maher, 1999). It is not known if further
OCR for page 198
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century research or implementation of this technology continued after this initial research study. The technical feasibility in the literature has been put into practice by Skagit Steel of Burlington, Washington. Skagit Steel processes fishing nets into products meeting the specifications of various end users. Their processing includes cleaning, densification (bailing), and shipping; none of the plastics are melted or extruded onsite. Skagit Steel reported processing approximately 500 tons of netting in 2007 (Lois Young, personal communication); this included 10 tons of mixed unsorted marine debris, primarily DFG, collected in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, with a tipping fee (cost to customer) of approximately $60 per ton (Bob King, personal communication). All forms of nets are accepted and the tipping fee is based on the condition of the nets (e.g., amount of organic contamination). The majority of the nets accepted are clean, but nets with some contaminants such as organics (e.g., algae, mussels, and other fouling organisms) and metals (e.g., lead lines) are also accepted. When contaminants exist, this can require manual sorting of the netting material (requiring the higher tipping fee), while clean nets can often be processed mechanically. Nets must be processed to meet various specifications determined by the end use. Most end users require that the material they receive has no organic life or metals. The end products of this process are reportedly recycled into new plastics (feedstock), upholstery, heat-resistant bearings, and plastic lining material (Lois Young, personal communication). The cost of operating a recycling facility for plastic fishing gear is similar to the costs of operating other material recovery facilities. Construction and demolition debris is likely the most similar material that is currently processed. The critical aspect of recycling is that enough throughput exists so that sufficient product can be sold for income. The available income directly relates to the market for the products, which is often variable and can make operations difficult. However, diversifying the materials processed by a single facility helps to offer a variety of products from processing that could provide income. Because of market fluctuations, it would make sense for an existing recycling facility to incorporate processing of fishing nets into their operations—or for a new facility to process more than just fishing nets (e.g., also accept metals). For locations that have a consistent stream, a fishing-gear-only recycling facility might also be feasible, though a specific cost analysis would be needed. In addition, processing facilities located remotely would have to take into account the transport of the densified (bailed) nets, unless there are local end users for the plastic. After processing, the material would likely be classified as a product and not a waste, allowing it to be shipped with other goods being shipped between states or overseas; for example, China currently has a market for plastic recycling.
OCR for page 199
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century THERMAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES Thermal technologies involve temperature changes to convert waste materials into useable products (e.g., organics into energy). They include the breakdown of the input materials into their elemental forms at a particular efficiency based on operational characteristics. Also, some thermal treatment facilities include various combinations of the technologies outlined in this section. There can be some confusion over the difference between gasification and pyrolysis technologies. Sometimes the production of gas in the pyrolysis process is referred to as gasification and sometimes the transformation of the organic materials into their elemental form is referred to as pyrolysis. However, for the purposes of this paper, the technologies are defined separately as described in subsequent sections. Combustion with Energy Recovery Facilities that combust waste and recover the energy are often called waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. Of the 251 million tons of waste generated in the United States in 2006, 31.4 tons (12.5 percent) were combusted with energy recovery (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). WTE technologies are proven and facilities are operated by both public entities and private companies throughout the United States. WTE reduces the volume of solid waste; for plastics, volume is typically reduced by 90 percent (Environmental Protection Agency, 2007). WTE technologies have been used for managing the fishing gear waste stream. However, the location of these facilities is important. Remote locations such as Dutch Harbor, Alaska, may not have close access to a facility and transportation of waste is expensive. In the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the fishing gear collected as a part of the Ghost Net Identification study was combusted with energy recovery at Honolulu Power (HPower), operated by Covanta. Currently, the Nets to Energy project continues to operate and deliver nets to HPower. HPower operates a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) combustion facility with energy recovery. Through size reduction and some sorting, an RDF facility preprocesses waste into a fuel that has optimum energy content and efficient combustion. Since HPower uses RDF, the fishing gear and nets must also be preprocessed before combustion. The nets were historically processed at Hawaii Metal Recycling Company and are now currently processed at Schnitzer Steel Hawaii, which size-reduces the nets for use at HPower. In 2003, 111 metric tons of fishing gear were utilized at HPower, creating energy that equated to powering 42 homes in Oahu for one year (Timmers et al., 2005; Yates, 2007). In the first year of the Nets to Energy program, 11 metric tons of debris were managed (Timmers et al., 2005).
OCR for page 200
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, fishing gear collection and management programs have commenced with both Covanta and Wheelabrator (Covanta Energy, 2008; New Hampshire Sea Grant, 2008). The facilities for these two projects are mass burn facilities (i.e., no preprocessing of the waste is required), so size reduction of the nets is not needed before combustion with energy recovery. Fouling organisms and other organics should not be a problem at a WTE facility because they will also combust to create energy. Metal is undesirable at a WTE facility, but small amounts can be tolerated. So far, the nets collected in New England have not needed source separation for metals; however, based on feedback from facility operators, this could be required depending on the amounts of metals and the facility design and operation. For a WTE facility to remain cost effective, it needs a steady stream of waste to operate and create electricity. Because of the investment in air pollution control systems, which can be large and expensive, facilities taking small amounts of waste are not likely to be economically feasible, nor are those located in remote areas without consistent waste material inputs. A site-specific waste flow analysis and design would be needed to determine economic feasibility. However, a WTE facility could take more waste than just fishing gear; it could take all (or a portion of) municipal solid waste generated in a specific area as well. Permitting a WTE facility, which is conducted by each individual state, is an extensive process as it often requires solid waste, air, water, and stormwater permits, as well as potential permits for land use. WTE facilities have also historically been controversial and public comment and input is required before permitting, construction, and operation. Gasification Gasification is the conversion of organic waste into its basic building blocks (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) with a small amount of oxygen input in the process. Gasification includes the partial oxidation of organics into a high-temperature gas in a reducing atmosphere and often uses air steam or oxygen as the gasification agent (Ray and Thorpe, 2007). The exothermic reaction between the carbon and the oxygen can provide the heat energy required to drive the process. The beneficial output is a flammable synthesis gas, or syngas, primarily composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and also nitrogen if air is used as the gasification agent (Ray and Thorpe, 2007). Gasification is an exothermic process and, since a small amount of oxygen (or air) is used, some carbon from the waste is lost as carbon dioxide instead of being converted into fuel, making gasification less efficient at conversion than pyrolysis (Ray and Thorpe, 2007). While there are some potential advan-
OCR for page 201
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century tages over incineration (e.g., potentially less dioxin and furan formation because of the reducing environment and temperature), the syngas can still contain impurities and requires extensive gas cleaning before being used beneficially (Ray and Thorpe, 2007). While literature is not available specifically for gasification of fishing gear, gasification as a process to convert plastics is proven (Pinto et al., 2002; Megan Feldt, personal communication) and several viable commercial processes are available; because of this, gasification was chosen as the preferred technology by the Sustainable Plastics to Olefins Recycling Technology project in the United Kingdom in 2007 (Ray and Thorpe, 2007). Ze-gen is a commercially operating demonstration gasification facility in Massachusetts. Ze-gen gasifies up to 10 tons per day of construction and demolition residual material (which also includes some mixed plastics). The gasification process utilizes molten bath technology to produce syngas (primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen). This syngas will eventually be used as fuel to generate electricity in a full-scale facility (Megan Feldt, personal communication). Slag is produced as a byproduct in the gasification process and is proposed to be used as construction aggregate. The Ze-gen facility has been site assigned by the City of New Bedford and permitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to handle, process, and transfer up to 1,500 tons per day of construction and demolition material, municipal solid waste, and scrap tires. The demonstration test facility began operating in October of 2007. Ze-gen’s full-scale facility could accept fishing gear waste (primarily plastics) if it were size reduced to 3-inch by 3-inch pieces (Megan Feldt, personal communication). Gasification can accept a relatively diverse input stream (less diverse than WTE, but more diverse than a plastics-to-fuel conversion) and this diversity could help a facility to be sited where a more specific process (plastics-to-fuel) would not have a consistent waste input stream. Gasification can take scrap tires and wood (biomass). In addition, the scale can be smaller than that of a WTE facility because the investment in air pollution equipment is not of the same scale. However, gas purification is needed and the infrastructure for this must be available for beneficial use of the gas. Purification must either be at the facility itself or at a location within transport distance. A site-specific waste, cost, and energy analysis would be required to determine economic feasibility. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is the thermal conversion of materials (e.g., waste) in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is an endothermic process requiring energy input, but it is very efficient at conversion (more so than gasification) (Ray
OCR for page 202
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century and Thorpe, 2007). Products of pyrolysis can include gases (e.g., carbon monoxide, hydrogen syngas), liquids and waxes (e.g., fuels, oil, diesel), and solid residue (e.g., char, coke, and carbon black) (Ludlow-Palafox and Chase, 2001). Research indicates that the products depend significantly on the pyrolysis process employed and variations in reactor vessel, retention time, and temperature, as well as other process details (Ludlow-Palafox and Chase, 2001; Kim et al., 2005a, b). In Korea, where DFG (composed of nylon 6, polyethylene, and polypropylene) has historically been placed in landfills, pyrolysis has been investigated as an alternative waste management strategy (Kim et al., 2005a, b). Kinetic tests using thermogravimetric analysis on nylon 6 show that gas, oil, and a small amount of coke are produced upon pyrolysis. The yield of gas compounds increased with the increase of reaction time (Kim et al., 2005a). It is also reported that higher process temperatures lead to higher yields of gases (Ludlow-Palafox and Chase, 2001). In Korea, the pyrolyzed oil from nylon 6 contained both nitrogen and oxygen (Kim et al., 2005b). Without any further processing, this oil would produce nitrogen oxides upon combustion; however, technologies exist to control postcombustion nitrogen oxide emissions. Pyrolysis requires an energy input and must produce net energy for economically feasible and sustainable operation. With the price of oil continuing to rise, the conversion of plastics to fuel is quickly evolving into an applicable technology. Demonstration and commercially operated facilities have existed overseas. A 2.5-ton-per-day waste polystyrene processing plant exists in Okayama, Japan. The plastic is treated with pyrolysis to produce liquid oil similar to kerosene (Klean Industries, 2006). Currently, in the United States, Plas2Fuel of Kelso, Washington, is employing a third-generation commercial-scale process which has been operating since the beginning of 2008 (Kevin DeWhitt, personal communication). The first application of the technology has not been tried yet, but the target is to initially convert agricultural waste plastic (mixed). Plas2Fuel reports that it is not intending to compete with segregated plastics recycling because separated and segregated plastics have a higher value. As a company, it is targeting mixed plastics only. In terms of technical feasibility, plastics can be mixed with organic and inorganic materials; however, anything not turned into fuel, including metal contaminants, leads to a greater quantity of byproducts (Kevin DeWhitt, personal communication). The plastic feedstock for the Plas2Fuel process does not have to be sorted or washed, but it must be size reduced to smaller than 1 inch. The Plas2Fuel process produces synthetic oil, which would need further refinement to make a viable fuel or lubricant. As an example, outputs from the Plas2Fuel process might be 7 percent carbon (black solid), 3 percent hydrochloric acid, and 90 percent oil and light gases. Both the carbon and
OCR for page 203
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century acid wastewater are byproducts. The carbon black byproduct could have a beneficial use and Plas2Fuel is looking for secondary uses. The wastewater might have a secondary use as well, but, because of the acidic strength, a secondary user might be difficult to find. The level of metals in the solids generated depends on the feedstock. Both cadmium and lead are used as modifiers in plastics and can impact the composition of the solid residue. For example, if enough metal were present, the resulting solid might not pass the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedures, qualifying it as a hazardous waste; however, this is reportedly rare (Kevin DeWhitt, personal communication). The process is new for the State of Washington and is not exempt from permits, but it is not currently regulated under any permits except for air quality. The technology itself is not specifically prohibited. Since the process operates under a vacuum, there are no air emissions. However, because of the light gas recycling, the air regulation issues can be complex; however, Plas2Fuel is meeting all applicable regulations at this time (Kevin DeWhitt, personal communication). Another company, TSphere Energy of Hawaii, is marketing a process developed by Adia Japan Co., Ltd. The process is known as plastic fuel conversion (Kate Butterfield, personal communication). Based on product literature provided by TSphere, the process has a 95 percent oil recovery and then utilizes 7 percent to operate a generator to power the process. The plastic waste must be size reduced to three-quarters of an inch. The fuel produced is a #1 heavy oil. The plastic is first liquefied (with heat) and then is thermally decomposed without the use of a catalyst. The gasified material is cooled (condensed) and stored for use. Varying plastic fuel converters offered by TSphere Energy are reportedly processing 0.9–3 tons per day (290–1,200 tons per year) with 4–6-month manufacturing and setup lead times (Kate Butterfield, personal communication). Since there are no full-scale operating facilities in the United States, as with any conversion process outlined in this paper, in order to justify the investment in a pyrolysis conversion facility, a constant feedstock (or a large stockpile) of material would need to be available. It is also not clear what the market is for the varying products produced from the process (i.e., oil, char, and wastewater). An individual assessment and cost-benefit analysis would be needed before considering a facility. Plasma Arc Furnace and Vitrification Plasma arc heaters are electric arc heaters (need electrical energy) that include the presence of an ionized gas (plasma) such as hydrogen (reducing), oxygen (oxidizing), or argon (inert) (Electric Power Research Institute, 1991; National Research Council, 1996). Plasma arc heaters operate
OCR for page 204
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century at extremely high temperatures—core temperatures of 7,200–36,000ºF and gas temperatures of 3,600–5,400ºF—and have been used in many applications, including heating and melting of metals, reclaiming of metals, smelting of ores, and treatment of dusts and various wastes (Electric Power Research Institute, 1991; Chua et al., 2006). While commercial technology is available for treatment of wastes with energy input, plasma arc is being investigated for waste treatment with energy recovery as well. The energy recovery is similar to that of pyrolysis and gasification—recovery of the basic building blocks of the waste stream itself (organics through syngas). The inorganic portion of the waste is vitrified into a glass-like slag material that could potentially be beneficially utilized (e.g., in construction). Various entities, including the U.S. Department of Defense and cities and counties in Florida (e.g., Tallahassee, St. Lucie County), are investigating plasma arc use (National Research Council, 1996; Shifler and Wong, 1997). Both a ship-based system (Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System [PAWDS]) and a mobile system (Plasma energy Pyrolysis system [PEPS®]) have been developed for the U.S. Department of Defense. Plasma vitrification has been explored for the management of noncombustible fiber-reinforced plastic, gill nets, and waste glass in Taiwan (Chua et al., 2006). The ship-based plasma arc system, PAWDS, was developed cooperatively with PyroGenesis and the U.S. Navy. Work was ongoing with the U.S. Navy as of a 1997 report on Material Considerations for the Navy Shipboard Waste Destruction System. For reasons not stated in that report, plastics were not considered a material to be treated by PAWDS at that time. According to PyroGenesis, PAWDS has been successfully installed on a Carnival Cruise Lines Ship (PyroGenesis, 2008). The system can be designed for 0.1–15 tons per day capacity and energy recovery is optional. Size reduction of the waste is required and the system includes a waste shredder. PAWDS produces a sand-like ash which can be off-loaded in port or disposed of at sea (PyroGenesis, 2008). PEPS® was developed and demonstrated in cooperation with the U.S. Army by Enersol Technologies, Inc. The first phase of research was a stationary PEPS® to evaluate reliability, maintainability, and overall effectiveness in destroying problematic waste streams on a commercial scale. The operational testing of a 10-ton-per-day facility was completed in 1999 (EnerSol Technologies, Inc., 2008). System and environmental performance was evaluated by an independent testing laboratory that was responsible for sampling and analysis of process emissions and byproducts (EnerSol Technologies, Inc., 2008). Since the development of the stationary PEPS®, a mobile PEPS® has been under development. While there are no current operating plasma arc facilities in the United States, there is a facility in Japan that accepts approximately 165 tons per
OCR for page 205
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century day of automobile shredder residue as fuel, producing approximately 8 megawatts of electric power. The facility could accept up to 330 tons per day of municipal solid waste (Vaidyanathan et al., 2007). Just like the evaluations for plasma arc facilities taking place currently (e.g., Florida), a site-specific evaluation of the waste, cost, and energy production would be required before determining the feasibility of a plasma arc facility for fishing gear or other wastes. REFERENCES Chua, J.P., Y.T. Chena, T. Mahalingam, C.C. Tzeng, and T.W. Cheng. 2006. Plasma vitrification and re-use of non-combustible fiber reinforced plastic, gill net and waste glass. Journal of Hazardous Materials. B138:628-632. Covanta Energy. 2008. Press Release: Covanta Energy and NOAA Join Together with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to Launch Fishing for Energy Program. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS137343+05-Feb-2008+BW20080205 [May 19, 2008]. Dagli, S.S., A. Patel, and M. Xanthos. 1990. Reclaiming and recycling of discarded plastic fishing gear. Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering: Proceedings of the ACS Division of Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering 63:1024-1028. Dagli, S.S., S. Dey, R. Tupil, and M. Xanthos. 1995. Value-added blends and composites from recycled plastic fishing gear. Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology 1:195-200. Electric Power Research Institute. 1991. Techcommentary: Plasma Arc Technology. Center for Materials Production, Carnegie Mellon Research Institute. EnerSol Technologies, Inc. 2008. EnerSol Technologies, Inc.: PEPS® and PEGS™ Plasma Enhanced Systems. [Online]. Available: http://www.enersoltech.com [May 22, 2008]. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2006 Facts and Figures. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Gregory, M.R. and A.L. Andrady. 2003. Plastics in the marine environment. In Plastics and the Environment, Andrady, A.L. (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Hutto, L.B. 2001. A Comprehensive Guide to Shipboard Waste Management. MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, Honolulu, HI. Kiessling, I. 2003. Finding Solutions: Derelict Fishing Gear and Other Marine Debris in Northern Australia, National Oceans Office and Department of the Environment and Heritage. Charles Darwin University, National Oceans Office, Canberra, Australia. Kim, S., J. Jeon, Y. Park, and K. Kim. 2005a. Thermal pyrolysis of fresh and waste fishing nets. Waste Management 25:811-817. Kim, S., B. Chun, and J. Jeon. 2005b. Pyrolysis kinetics and characteristics of the mixtures of waste ship lubricating oil and waste fishing rope. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 22(4):573-578. Klean Industries. 2006. Focused on Renewable Energy, Resource Recovery and Recycling. [Online]. Available: http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/Home.asp [May 22, 2008]. Labib, M. and A. Maher. 1999. Recycled Plastic Fibers for Asphalt Mixtures. [Online]. Available: http://www.cait.rutgers.edu/finalreports/FHWA-NJ-2000-004.pdf [July 16, 2008]. Ludlow-Palafox, C. and H.A. Chase. 2001. Microwave-induced pyrolysis of plastic wastes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 40(22):4749-4756. National Research Council. 1995. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council. 1996. Shipboard Pollution Control: U.S. Navy Compliance with MARPOL Annex V. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
OCR for page 206
Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century New Hampshire Sea Grant. 2008. Marine Debris to Energy. [Online]. Available: http://cecf1.unh.edu/debris [May 27, 2008]. Pinto, F., C. Franco, R.N. Andre, M. Miranda, I. Gulyurtlu, and I. Cabrita. 2002. Co-gasification study of biomass mixed with plastic wastes. Fuel 81:291-297. PyroGenesis. 2008. Advanced Waste-to-Energy Plasma Systems. [Online]. Available: http://www.pyrogenesis.com/index.asp [July 1, 2008]. Ray, R. and R.B. Thorpe. 2007. A comparison of gasification with pyrolysis for the recycling of plastic containing wastes. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering 5(1):A85. Shifler, D.A. and C.R. Wong. 1997. Material Considerations for the Navy Shipboard Waste Destruction System, Survivability, Structures and Materials Directorate Technical Report. Naval Surface Warfare Center, West Bethesda, Maryland. Timmers, M.A., C.A. Kistner, and M.J. Donohue. 2005. Marine Debris of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Ghost Net Identification. Hawaii Sea Grant Publication. Vaidyanathan, A., J. Mulholland, J. Ryu, M.S. Smith, and L.J. Circeo, Jr. 2007. Characterization of fuel gas products from the treatment of solid waste streams with a plasma arc torch. Journal of Environmental Management 82:77-82. Yates, L. 2007. Nets to Energy: The Honolulu Derelict Net Recycling Program. [Online]. Available: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cz/2007/Coastal_Zone_07_Proceedings/PDFs/Thursday_Abstracts/3315.Yates.pdf [August 1, 2008].