United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-037 June 1981
Project Summary
Report of the Interagency
Ad Hoc Work Group for the
Chemical Waste Incineration
Ship Program
Robert J. Johnson, Peter J Weller, Donald A Oberacker and
Milton L Neighbors
This publication summarizes two
complete project reports: "Design
Recommendations for a Shipboard
At-Sea Hazardous Waste Incineration
System," and "Design Requirements
for a Waterfront Facility to Support
Chemical Waste Incinerator Ships."
These two engineering studies assess
the key aspects of at-sea incineration
of hazardous chemical wastes. In-
cluded are evaluations of (1) several
alternative shipboard incineration
systems, (2) requirements for a full-
service waterfront support facility,
and (3) all phases of waste disposal,
from waste selection to final disposi-
tion of any effluent, ash, or residues
produced. A preliminary evaluation
was made of generic incinerators
potentially applicable to shipboard
operation. As a result, liquid injection
incinerators were selected for de-
struction of pumpable wastes, and a
rotary kiln was recommended for
experimental evaluations of shipboard
incineration of solid hazardous wastes.
Fluidized-bed, molten salt, multiple
hearth, multiple chamber, and starved-
air incinerators are all limited in oper-
ating temperatures and/or waste type
capability compared with the rotary
kiln.
Cost of each liquid injection inciner-
ator is estimated to be $2.5 million (or
$3.8 million installed). Estimated cost
of rotary kiln incinerator proposed for
shipboard application is $900,000 (or
$1.1 million installed). One rotary kiln
and three liquid injection incinerators
are recommended for the ship under
consideration, which has a waste
capacity of approximately 8,000 met-
ric tons. Required sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis equipment is esti-
mated to cost approximately $261,000.
These estimates are in 1980 dollars.
The Maritime Administration of the
U.S. Department of Commerce has
estimated the total cost of a new
incinerator vessel (including installed
incineration equipment) to be $75 to
$80 million for delivery in 1985.
Capital costs for a dedicated, full-
service waterfront support facility
(excluding dock rental and land costs)
are estimated to be $19 million in
1980 dollars. Operating costs (includ-
ing labor, maintenance, depreciation,
power, and ash disposal) are estimated
to be $4 million annually, excluding
undetermined insurance costs.
A review of existing U.S. terminal
facilities found that 139 ports and
1,221 terminal docks, piers, or
wharves on the East, Gulf, and West
coasts of the continental United States
have sufficient water depth and space
to receive the conceptual design in-
cinerator ship. These terminals are
concentrated primarily in the states of
-------
Texas, New Jersey, Louisiana, Cali-
fornia, and New York.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
An estimated 57 million metric tons of
industrial hazardous wastes were pro-
duced in the United States during 1980.
Many of these wastes, particularly the
organic chemicals, are mcinerable; but
only a limited number of commercially
available, land-based hazardous waste
incinerators exist in the United States,
and public opposition to additional sites
is increasing. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is considering
a demonstration project using a U.S.
flag vessel for at-sea incineration of
hazardous wastes This project would
be conducted in cooperation with the
Maritime Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Thermal destruction of chemical
wastes at sea by European vessels has
been shown to be an environmentally
acceptable and cost effective means of
disposal for many types of liquid com-
bustible chemical wastes. EPA has
recommended that a U.S. incinerator
ship be built that is capable of destroying
liquid wastes at sea and that can explore
extending the capability of at-sea incin-
eration to solid and semi-solid materials.
The objectives of this study were to
assess the key aspects of at-sea incin-
eration and to issue a study report. An
engineering evaluation was performed
on several alternative forms of ship-
board incineration systems, including
waste selection and the disposition of
any effluent or residues produced.
Design requirements were also devel-
oped for a waterfront support facility for
incinerator ships This facility would
receive, store, analyze, process, and
load wastes onto the ship in a safe and
efficient manner; it would also receive
any residues from the incinerator ship
for analysis and disposal
Conclusions
The conclusions developed from this
engineering study are twofold: those
concerning the shipboard incineration
system and those having to do with the
waterfront support facility.
Shipboard Incineration System
Types of Incinerators—
Major characteristics of candidate
incinerators for shipboard, at-sea appli-
cation are compared in Table 1. The
capability of each incinerator to destroy
different types of waste material is
noted in the table, along with maximum
operating temperature, relative main-
tenance requirements, and present
commercial applications.
The liquid injection incinerator can be
used only for pumpable liquids; however,
it is the most effective means of inciner-
ating liquid wastes at high feed rates,
and it is capable of attaining the tem-
perature required (up to 1600°C) for
highly efficient destruction of toxic
materials. This incinerator can also
serve as the afterburner for a solid
waste incinerator. Maintenance re-
quirements are low because there are
no moving parts within the high tem-
perature zone. Liquid injection incinera-
tors are widely used in commercial
applications and represent the only
technology well proven at sea for de-
struction of hazardous wastes.
Rotary kilns are the most versatile
incinerators available, capable of han-
dling any combination of liquids, slurries,
tars, or solids, including containerized
Table 1 . Comparison of Candidate
Liquid
Item Injection
Waste Capability:
Pumpable Liquids
Slurries, Sludges
Tars
Solids:
Granular
Irregular
Containerized
Maximum Operating
Temperature, °C
Maintenance
Requirements
Commercial
Application
X
1600
low™
Widely used,'
liquid wastes
Incinerators for
Rotary
Kiln
X
X
X
X
X
X
1600
medium*'*0
Widely used.
all wastes
Shipboard, At-Sea
Fluidized-
Bed
X
X
X
980
med/'uma'c
Limited use.
sludges and
organic wastes
Application
Mo/ten
Salt
X
X
X
X
980
medium"'"
Demon-
stration
tests only
Multiple
Hearth
X
X
X
1100
high9
Widely used.
sewage
sludge
Multiple
Chamber
X
X
X
WOO
medium"
Widely used.
refuse
Starved-
Air
X
X
X
820
high"
Resource
recovery
BNo moving parts in high temperature zone.
tiBearing and seal modifications required.
cAsh removal and bed replacement required.
dSa/f recycle or replacement required.
"Moving parts in high temperature zone.
'Liquid injection incinerators are the only type that have been successfully utilized for shipboard, at-sea operation.
-------
wastes. Temperatures as high as 1600°C
can be attained in the kiln. Rotary kilns
represent well proven technology for
land-based incineration but their use at
sea would be a new application. Specially
designed equipment will be required to
withstand pitch, roll, vibration, and
environmental conditions at sea. Main-
tenance requirements may be higher
than for a liquid injection system. The
rotary kiln used in conjunction with a
liquid injection incinerator is considered
to be the most versatile system for
thermal destruction of a wide variety of
hazardous wastes.
Fluidized-bed incinerators are more
limited than rotary kilns in their range of
feed materials (Table 1) and are not
suited for irregular solids or tarry sub-
stances. Maximum operating tempera-
tures are limited to 980°C to avoid
fusion of the silica sand bed material.
Higher temperatures of 1200°C are
possible using alumina refractory par-
ticles at the bed materials. Maintenance
includes ash removal and replacement
of the bed when necessary. Pitch and
roll of the ship, particularly during
storms, would cause shifting of the
large mass of bed material, both during
incineration and when shut down. The
bed will retain heat for restart during
shutdowns of up to 1-day duration,
beyond which reheating of the bed is
required.
Molten salt reactor pilot and demon-
stration units have been used to destroy
liquid, slurry, and granular solid waste
materials, but no large commercial
units are presently in operation. Opera-
ting temperature of the salt bed is
limited to 980°C. Pitch and roll on the
ship will cause sloshing of the molten
salt within the reactor. A potential
advantage of this system is that it can
serve as a combined incinerator/
scrubber by retaining particulates and
contaminants in the bed, but salt regen-
eration or replacement is then needed
periodically. The salt bed must also be
removed from the reactor before solidi-
fication during shutdown. A spill of the
hot, caustic salt that contains toxic
contaminants could pose hazards aboard
ship.
Multiple hearth incinerators are widely
used for sewage sludge disposal, but
they can also accept granular solid and
liquids (injected through the auxiliary
fuel nozzles). Operating temperatures
|are limited to 1100°C because of the
internal mechanical components (ro-
tating shaft, rabble arms, etc.). Main-
tenance of internal moving parts would
be frequent because of ship motion as
well as thermal stress. Also, the pres-
ence of any fusible ash could render the
system inoperable until cleaned out.
Multiple chamber incinerators are
used extensively for industrial disposal
of bulk solid wastes. Liquid wastes can
be injected with the auxiliary fuel. Since
slurries and sludges may fall through
the incinerator grates, they are not
suitable for this incinerator. Solids/air
mixing is not as thorough as in rotary
kilns, and high excess air rates are
required, resulting in operating tem-
peratures of approximately 1000°C.
A number of incinerator designs,
including multiple hearths, can be
operated as starved-air combustors by
restricting air input to less than the
amount required for stoichiometric
conditions. These systems may have
high efficiencies, but hazardous by-
products may be formed if there is
insufficient oxygen for complete
reaction, and an afterburner is required
to burn combustible emissions. Use of
this mode of, incinerator operation is
usually limited to by-product recovery
from sludges or solids.
Emission Control Devices—
Emission control devices commonly
used with land-based incinerators have
many limitations for shipboard opera-
tion, including size, weight, and fresh
water requirements. Table 2 summarizes
the major advantages and limitations of
emission control devices potentially
suitable for at-sea incineration of haz-
ardous wastes. A high-energy venturi
scrubber represents the lowest weight,
volume, and installed cost emission
control system evaluated, if the sea
water can be used for scrubbing and
discharged into the sea. A closed-loop
system requiring a settling tank would
be impractical because of space and
weight requirements.
Waste Feed Systems—
A shipboard waste feed system is
required to retrieve the waste from
storage and transport it to the incinerator
without spillage under operating condi-
tions of pitch, roll, and vibration. Liquid
wastes and some slurries can be trans-
ported to the incinerator by conven-
tional pumps, piping, and valves. Solids
can be loaded into sealed containers on
land: either smaller fiber containers can
be fed directly into the incinerator, or
larger standard bulk material containers
can be discharged directly into a sealed
hopper. Handling of 55-gal drums (par-
ticularly potential leakers) and shredding
operations involve too much risk aboard
ship.
Waste Selection—
Wastes can be selected for at-sea
incineration only after a complete analysis
of their physical, chemical, and thermal
properties. Physical properties must be
known to determine if the waste is
compatible with the incinerator type
and waste handling system. Chemical
and thermal properties affect the com-
bustion characteristics of the waste.
Normally, a minimum heating value of
4400 to 5540 kcal/kg (8,000 to 10,000
Btu/lb) is necessary to sustain combus-
tion, but this is only an approximate
limit. The M/T Vulcanus has burned
organochlorine wastes with chlorine
content as high as 63% and heat content
as low as 3,860 kcal/kg (6,950 Btu/lb)
without firing auxiliary fuel.
Monitoring—
Dedicated shipboard laboratory per-
sonnel are required to assure opera-
tional safety by analyzing the shipboard
environment for waste constituents and
by verifying waste destruction efficiency.
Environmental monitoring during at-
sea incineration is essential to ensure
personnel safety and to protect the
environment.
Waterfront Support Facility
The waterfront facility is a critical part
of the entire system for chemical waste
disposal using incinerator ships. A
dedicated, full-service facility must
accommodate wastes in almost any
physical form and in several types of
containers, some of which may be old,
corroded, and possibly leaking. Ideally,
the facility would service waste delivery
by truck, rail, and barge. The proposed
facility would consecutively accommo-
date up to two incinerator ships, each of
which would be on a 2-week cycle.
Capability m ust be provided for prepa ri ng
and blending wastes for optimum trans-
fer and combustion, and for unloading
any ash residue from the incineration
process from each ship. Figure 1 is a
generalized process flow diagram for
the facility.
Design—
The waterfront facility is designed to
prevent emissions of hazardous ma-
-------
Table 2. Advantages and Limitations of Selected Emission Control Devices
Device Advantages
Limitations
Dry Electrostatic
Precipitator
Dry dust collection inc. heavy metals
Low pressure drop and power requirement
Efficient removal of fine particles
No waste sludge generated
Wet Electrostatic
Precipitator
Fabric Filter
Simultaneous gas absorption and dust removal
Low energy consumption
No dust resistivity problems
Efficient removal of fine particles
Control of tacky particles buildup
Dry dust collection inc. heavy metals
High efficiency at low to moderate pressure
drop
Efficient removal of fine particles
No sludge or liquid wastes
No liquid freezing problems
Dry sorbent injection for removal of gaseous
pollutants possible
Molten Salt Scrubber Incineration and scrubbing of gaseous and
paniculate emissions possible in a
single device
Heavy metals removal
Hot incinerator gases can serve to preheat
salt bath
Salt bath operates as afterburner
Pilot experience with chlorinated hydrocarbon
wastes
Simultaneous gas absorption and dust removal
Suitable for high temperature, high moisture
and high dust-loading applications
Cut diameter of 0.5fjm is attainable
Collection efficiency may be varied
Commercially proven with hazardous waste
incineration
Resin-coated FRP materials available for
halogenic gases
Effective scrubbing with fresh water or sea water
Relatively low weight and capital cost
Simultaneous gas absorption and dust removal
Suitable for high temperature, high moisture,
and high dust-loading applications
Collection efficiency may be varied
High Energy Venturi
Scrubber with Mist
Eliminator Tower
Spray Tower
Relatively high capital cost
Sensitive to change in flow rate
Particle resistivity affects removal & economics
Not capable of removing gaseous pollutants
Fouling potential with tacky particles
Primary collection of large particles required
Electrical shorting possible aboard ship
High corrosion damage expected with halogens
Limited commercial experience for hazardous waste
incineration
Relatively high capital cost
Low gas absorption efficiency
Sensitive to changes in flow rate
Dust collection is wet
Demister possibly required
Electrical shorting possible aboard ship
High corrosion damage expected with halogens
Limited commercial experience for hazardous waste
incineration
Gas temperatures cannot exceed 290°C although
practical maximum is 95°C
Fabrics may be susceptible to chemical attack
Not capable of removing gaseous pollutants without
modification
Demister required after pre-quench
Relatively large system size and costs
Storage required for dry sorbent, waste cake and
spent materials; disposal required for waste
cake and spent materials
No commercial experience with hazardous waste
incineration
Limited commercial experience
Slip-stream testing needed
Batch process with limited information on cycle
times
Budgetary capital costs and operating costs not
available
Relatively large space requirement
Danger potential in case of molten salt accident
Corrosion and erosion problems with metallic con-
struction
Additional corrosion problems with sea water
Dust is collected wet
Moderate to high pressure drop
Only moderate removal of gaseous pollutants
Settling pond required for closed-loop operation
High efficiency may require high pump discharge
pressures
Dust is collected wet
Nozzles are susceptible to plugging
Requires downstream mist eliminator
Design based on experience and experimental testing
Settling pond required for closed-loop operation
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Device
Advantages
Limitations
Plate-type Scrubbers
and Packed Bed
Simultaneous gas absorption and dust removal
High removal efficiency for gaseous and
aerosol pollutants
Low to moderate pressure drop
Commercially proven with hazardous waste
incineration
Low efficiency for fine particles
Not suitable for high temperature or high dust-
loading applications
Requires downstream mist eliminator
Corrosion and erosion problems with metallic con-
struction
Additional corrosion problems with sea water
Sett/ing pond required for closed-loop operation
For tray towers, motion of ship results in uneven
weir heights
terials, to contain spills, .eaks, and other
accidents, and to minimize harm to
personnel and the environment in the
event of accidents.
Ideally, the facility should be located
where transportation time and distance
are minimal. Structural standards must
be carefully followed; these would
normally be defined by the Uniform
Building Code and additional location-
specific building regulations. The design
must also meet safety, health, and
environmental criteria, which include
provisions for facility monitoring, per-
sonnel safety, and contingency planning
in the event of both major and minor
releases of chemical wastes that have
the potential to pollute the land, water,
or air. These criteria are generally
specified in Federal regulations. A
proposed layout of the facility is shown
in Figure 2. Approximately 75,000 m2
(18 acres) of land will be required and a
staff of approximately 40 will be needed
to operate on a two-shift schedule.
Waste Handling—
Liquid waste, solid waste, and ash
residue from incineration will be pro-
cessed and stored separately. Liquid
waste in drums and other containers
will be sent through a shredder in the
dedrumming facility. Liquid from both
the containers and the decontamination
of the containers will be blended to
optimize transfer and combustion pro-
cesses and pumped to storage tanks.
Liquid waste arriving in tank trucks or
tank cars will also be blended and
pumped to the storage tanks along with
the tanker decontamination rinse.
Solid waste arriving at the site will be
^unloaded at the unloading rack, prepared
incineration by shredding, and placed
In bulk material containers to be loaded
onto the ship. Any ash residue from the
at-sea burn will be returned to the
waterfront facility and kept in the residue
storage area until removed for ultimate
disposal, probably in a landfill approved
for hazardous waste disposal
Review of Existing Terminal
Facilities—
A review of existing terminal facilities
in the United States was conducted by
Diversified Maritime Services, Inc , as
part of this study. Facilities that regularly
accommodate vessels similar m length
and draft to the conceptual incineration
vessel were identified, without regard
to the type of commodity or material
being handled. Only those terminals
having a minimum water depth at
loading berths of 7.6 M (25 ft) were
included. This list of terminals was then
•limited to those that are handling either
liquid and/or dry cargoes that are
hazardous or commodities that possess
physical and chemical characteristics
that are similar to those anticipated for
hazardous wastes (ignitability, corro-
Sivity, reactivity, toxicity). The latter
group of terminals was evaluated from
the standpoint of their potential for
conversion to a liquid and/or solid
hazardous waste marine terminal. Ma-
rine terminal and materials handling
experts were consulted regarding rea-
sonable and practical alternatives in the
development of a hazardous waste
marine terminal.
On the East, Gulf, and West coasts of
the continental United States, there are
139 ports and 1,221 terminal docks,
piers or wharves that have sufficient
water depth and space to receive the
chemical waste incineration vessel as
designed. Of the 1,221 terminal docks,
piers and wharves, 381 handle refined
petroleum products or liquefied chemi-
cals (and allied products). These termi-
nals are concentrated primarily m the
states of Texas, New Jersey, Louisiana,
California, and New York Except for
military terminals, ownership of these
facilities is predominantly private.
Most of the major and many of the
smaller bulk liquid terminal companies
that offer services to the public are
members of the Independent Liquid
Terminal Association, established m
1974. Through that association, they
are relatively well informed of environ-
mental rules and regulations that are
being developed in compliance with
congressional legislation. Accordingly,
these companies are not only familiar
with long-existing local, state, and
Federal regulations for handling com-
mercial bulk liquid commodities (which
are mainly concerned with fire, explo-
sion, and safety matters), but they are
also acquainted with recent EPA regula-
tions for implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Several
of these companies have filed or plan to
file "Notification of Hazardous Waste
Activity" (EPA Form 8700-1 2) to qualify
their terminals for interim status. The
knowledge and expertise of such firms
could contribute to the development of a
waterfront facility.
Recommendations
The recommended incineration sys-
tem for destruction of both solid and
liquid hazardous wastes at sea is a
rotary kiln coupled to a liquid injection
incinerator. Two or more identical liquid
injection incinerators (depending on
size of the ship selected) should be used
for the destruction of liquid wastes. A
single rotary kiln should be installed in
combination with one of the liquid
injection incinerators for evaluation
before additional kilns are added.
-------
Transportation
Pool
T Tankers
1 Tankers
Incoming Liquid ' — v, Inco
W?"t<> fn pr,,rr,* Decontamination f Liquid
and Containers
Containerized
, , Waste
norinimminrj Liquid
Facility Waste
Y
n • Liquid
Waste
1
Metal
Scrap
< i \ ' \
in Ta
i
Liquid Receiv
Waste Testl
•
Waste (
nkers *"
Liquid Solid l/l/
^ Waste
ng1 TanA
> '
Blending and/or Fuel Storage Sh
Other Preparation •*• Tanks Off
\
Blended
, Liquid Waste
''nntainf>ri7f>rl
Storage Blended ^ Solid
Tanks Liquid
Waste
i
i
^Waste
' \ '
Ship
• 1
At-Sea
Incineration
Ash
i ' Residue
Onshore
Storage
iAsh
Residue
Ultimate
Disposal
Incoming
Solid Waste
rized]
'asie f
Unloading
Rack
\ '
redding and/or
ler Preparation
Prepared
Solid
' ' Wastes
Bulk
Containers
itoring the liquid waste feed rate to each
incinerator burner. Solid material should
be processed on land and loaded into
sealed bulk material carriers or mciner-
able containers compatible with ship-
board safety requirements to minimize
hazards of waste handling on board
ship. Use of 55-gal drums and shredding
operations on board are not recom-
mended
Environmental monitoring during at-
sea incineration must be conducted to
ensure personnel safety and protection
of the environment A shipboard labora-
tory should be provided for analysis and
identification of effluent waste samples
and verification of destruction efficiency.
A waterfront facility is essential to
support the operation of incinerator
ships. The facility must be designed to
receive, store, analyze, process, and
load wastes aboard the ship in a safe
and efficient manner, and to receive any
residues from the incineration process
for ultimate disposal. Some existing
private and military terminals may be
used for this purpose.
A U.S. incinerator ship can serve two
broad functions: first, it can be used for
the destruction of hazardous wastes in
a location minimizing the risk to public
health and the environment; second, it
can provide a safe site to continue EPA
research and development efforts in
hazardous waste incineration. Further-
more, an incineration vessel would
provide needed experience in the large-
scale processing of hazardous waste
materials. The effects of process varia-
tions in a commercial-scale incinerator
on hazardous waste destruction effi-
ciencies needed to be further investi-
gated, along with many types of wastes
not yet tested. In addition to destroying
hazardous wastes, the proposed incin-
eration vessel could effectively test
incinerator designs, emission control
concepts, and improved sampling/
monitoring equipment and methods.
Figure 1. Waterfront facility process flow.
The ship layouts shown in Figure 3
indicate some of the ways that incinera-
tion systems can be integrated on board
ships to provide desired incineration
capacity and operational time at sea.
Studies should be made for each ship
size under consideration to determine
the optimum number of incinerators
and incineration time versus ship loading
and transit times.
A high-energy venturi scrubber with
a pre-quench and a mist eliminator
tower utilizing sea water should be
considered for shipboard evaluation.
Marine environmental effects of single-
pass sea water scrubbing system must
be evaluated, however.
Ideally, liquid wastes should be stored
in inert, gas-blanketed, lined tanks.
Flowmeters are recommended for mon-
-------
300m
' (WOO ft)
Rolling
i /r » « Gate r m « * * —
Tanker Unloading _
and
Decontamination
Rolling
Gate 1
(2000 bbl)-
(800 ft)
m
ft)
j
J
«
i
*
(
K
•
1
ft
7200 m3 .
7200 bbl)
Water
Treatment
C
Vapor
Storage
and
Disposal
(Blending) f
Ora/7* St
^J
uu
DO
OO
O\&
Container
rocessing)i
orage-^
3000 m3
18000 bbl
o
o
/o"
Waste
Preparatio
Solvent
) V_/
S^\ 5
Solvent
oc
6
(Ship-Container
i^Bx^Loading)^—*
olid and Containerize
Liquid Storage
iRamp c
n
Maintenance
\ Equipment
Fire
and
Safety
Equipment
700m
Drainage
Channels
Expansion
Dikes
rShip Loading*—
PI \Controls
Incinerator Ship
-140 m (450 ft)—
Support I
\Building *
460 m2 ,
Administration
\—Lab-lf
Fence\
Expansion
60 m
(200 ft)
Fuel
O
o
Residue Receiving
and
Loading
Ramp
•0-
- 60 m -
-(200 Ill-
x-. 25 m
.--' (82ft)
Figure 2. Waterfront facility layout.
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981-757-012/7157
-------
-Liquid Incinerators (2)
' Deck 4000 MT
House ' Waste Storage
-Rotary Kiln
100 m
.Liquid
Incinerators (3)
I I
8000 MT | Deck
j Waste Storage | House
130 m
Liquid
Incinerators (6)
Rotary
-Kilns (2)
72000 MT
Waste Storage
Deck
House
160 m
Figure 3. Alternative incinerator ship configurations.
Robert J. Johnson and Peter J. Weller are with TRW. Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
90278; Milton L. Neighbors is with Diversified Maritime Services, Washington,
DC 20005.
Donald A. Oberacker is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Report of the Inter agency Ad Hoc Work Group for
the Chemical Waste Incineration Ship Program," (Order No. PB 81 -112 849;
Cost: $20.00, subject to change] will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
USS ENVIR2PRGTt;CTION
REGION 5 LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN SIRtlET
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |