Plan for Compliance With Regulation 5 of Annex V to the MARPOL Convention

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Plan for Compliance With Regulation 5 of Annex V to the MARPOL

Convention

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DON is announcing the preparation of a plan for the compliance

of all ships owned or operated by the Navy with the requirements of

Regulation 5 of Annex V to the MARPOL Convention. The DON will consult

with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary

of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency on the special area compliance plan and solicits public

participation and comment on the special area compliance plan. In order

to obtain and consider public comments on the Navy's compliance with

the MARPOL requirements, the Navy will host a public meeting prior to

preparing the special area compliance plan.

DATES: The meeting will take place on September 20, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the main auditorium (Building

Number 19) at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division,

Carderock, MD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the public

meeting, contact Ms. Linda Dulin at (410) 293-3513. For information on

the DON special area compliance plan for MARPOL compliance or to submit

comments, contact the Officer in Charge, Naval Surface Warfare Center,

Carderock Division, Annapolis Detachment, 3A Leggett Circle, Annapolis,

MD 21402-6067 (Attn: Code 634A). The meeting will be conducted in

English and will include oral briefings and visual displays. Members of

the public who need additional assistance to participate should contact

Ms. Dulin as soon as possible to make arrangements.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Navy has explored ways to

comply with restrictions on the discharge into the ocean of solid waste

generated aboard its ships. The basis for the restrictions, the Navy's

efforts to comply and its strategy for achieving future compliance are

set out below.

Restrictions on Discharge of Solid Waste at Sea

The United States is a party to the International Convention on

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, S. Treaty Doc. No. 3, 100th

Cong., 1st Sess. (1987). The 1973 Convention was amended by the MARPOL

Protocol in 1978, 17 I.L.M. 546 (1978), and the combination is

frequently referred to as MARPOL 73/78. MARPOL 73/78 protects the ocean

environment by prohibiting some discharges altogether, restricting

other discharges to particular distances from land, and establishing

``special areas'' within which additional discharge limitations apply.

MARPOL 73/78 deals with particular types of discharges in five annexes.

Annex V addresses discharge of garbage from ships. MARPOL 73/78 was

implemented for the United States in the Act to Prevent Pollution from

Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Annex V has been implemented for

the U.S. by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act

(MPPRCA), Pub. L. No. 100-220, 101 Stat. 1460 (1987), codified at 33

U.S.C. 1901 et seq., and section 1003 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-160, 107 Stat.

1745 (DAA-94).

MARPOL 73/78 provides enhanced protection to particular bodies of

water, designated ``special areas,'' because their oceanographic

characteristics and ecological significance requires protective

measures more strict than other areas of the ocean. The stricter

requirements become applicable once the International Maritime

Organization declares that the special areas are ``in effect'' after

determining that the littoral countries have sufficient capacity to

handle wastes from ships.

The international community has long recognized that the

characteristics of warships pose special problems for strict compliance

with MARPOL 73/78, which reasonably focuses on civilian vessels which

are far more prevalent than warships on the world's oceans. Article 3

of MARPOL 73/78 recognizes the special nature of warships by exempting

them from strict compliance with the provisions of the Convention. It

provides that the Convention:

[S]hall not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary or other ship

* * *. Each Party shall ensure by the adoption of measures not

impairing the operational capabilities of such ships * * * that such

ships act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and

practicable.

For U.S. public vessels, implementation of MARPOL 73/78 generally

preserves the sovereign immunity of warships and public vessels,

excluding them from strict application of the standards but requiring

the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations ensuring ``so far as

is reasonable and practicable without impairing the operations or

operational capabilities'' of the ships that they act ``in a manner

consistent with the MARPOL Protocol.'' See 33 U.S.C. 1902(b) and (d).

As required by MARPOL 73/78 and APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., the Navy

has prescribed discharge limits and operational practices for Navy

ships that are at least as protective as those required under MARPOL

73/78 under most circumstances. Under the MPPRCA, however, Navy ships

were required to come into full compliance with the requirements of

Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Under the MPPRCA, the Navy was to come into

full compliance with Annex V to MARPOL 73/78 by January 1, 1994 or to

notify Congress if it was unable to comply.

Navy Compliance Efforts

Since the early 1980's, the Navy has been developing technological

means to eliminate or mitigate discharge of solid waste from its ships.

Through a combination of material substitution, source reduction and

management practices, for example, the discharge of plastic waste was

cut by over 70 percent. The Navy also pursued development of other

technology to help manage solid waste at sea. By 1993, the Navy had

installed equipment and imposed procedures to fully comply with MARPOL

restrictions on non-plastic waste everywhere but in special areas, and

had achieved an estimated 70 percent compliance with restrictions on

plastic waste. In addition, the Navy developed new technology that,

when finally procured and installed, will allow Navy surface ships to

come into full compliance with restrictions on discharge of plastic

waste.

Concurrent with the technical studies, the Navy engaged numerous

stakeholders in a dialogue in which the Keystone Center acted as a

facilitator. The stakeholders included Federal and state agencies,

Congressional staff, and environmental groups. The dialogue allowed the

Navy to provide information to the participants about the special

problems it faces in continuing military operations on the world's

oceans while still complying with restrictions on the discharge of

solid waste. The Navy was also better able to understand the concerns

and interests of the representative stakeholders on the subject.

The Navy reported its efforts at managing shipboard solid waste in

``U.S. Navy Compliance with the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and

Control Act of 1987'' (June 1993). Congress responded by extending the

original deadlines in the MPPRCA. As required by section 1003(a) of the

DAA-94, surface ships must eliminate all discharges of plastics by

December 31, 1998 and must comply with limits on discharges of other

solid waste in special areas that are ``in effect'' by December 31,

2000. Submarines must comply with both requirements by December 31,

2008.

Plan for Compliance in Special Areas

The Navy has identified the solution to the problem of plastic

discharges from surface ships and is working hard on a solution for

submarines. Strict compliance with all requirements for discharges of

nonplastic solid waste in special areas, however, presents a larger

problem because of the nature of the waste stream and the military

mission of warships. Regulation 5 of Annex V pertains to discharges in

special areas and prohibits discharges of solid wastes, other than food

wastes. Although the Navy has made important strides in studying the

shipboard waste stream, in developing management strategies, and in

developing equipment that can mitigate the effects of solid waste

discharges, the Navy has not identified a final solution that would

eliminate all non-food discharges in special areas. Recognizing the

difficulty in achieving strict compliance with all requirements of

Annex V, in section 1003(b) of the DAA-94, Congress required the Navy

to prepare a plan for compliance with the requirements of Regulation 5

under Annex V. The special area compliance plan must be submitted to

Congress by November 30, 1996. If the special area compliance plan

demonstrates that full compliance with all the requirements of

Regulation 5 of Annex V is not technologically feasible in the case of

certain ships under certain conditions, it must include the following

information:

a. The ships for which full compliance is not technologically

feasible;

b. the technical and operational impediments to achieving such

compliance as rapidly as is technologically feasible; and

c. such other information as the Secretary of the Navy considers

relevant and appropriate.

In accordance with DAA-94 and to ensure the broad public

understanding of the problem, the Navy will consult with the Secretary

of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation

and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as it

prepares the special area compliance plan. The Navy will also provide

the opportunity for public participation in preparation of the special

area compliance plan, including public review and comment. This notice

is provided to inform the public that preparation of the special area

compliance plan is beginning and to solicit public comments on the

scope of the studies to be planned and the alternatives to be studied.

Navy Mission and Resource Constraints

Any solution to the Navy's solid waste problem in special areas

must consider the types of missions that the Navy is directed to carry

out in special areas and the constraints and challenges inherent in

operating warships at sea. These considerations include the following:

The Navy must be prepared to carry out duties assigned by the

President to protect the nation's interests around the world. Most of

the designated special areas include locations of great strategic and

economic interest, including the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the

Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea and the Baltic. Navy

missions in such areas often require that ships remain on station at

sea for prolonged periods of time. For example, surveillance and

tracking missions for drug interdiction or for enforcement of economic

sanctions would be compromised if ships were required to leave station

and steam to port to offload waste. For another example, Naval ships

maintaining combat air patrol over a crisis area like Bosnia often must

remain on station at sea for months at a time to prevent a break in

coverage. Navy ships have also often been ordered to remain for weeks

or months off the coast of nations in turmoil so that U.S. forces can

evacuate U.S. citizens if necessary. In other circumstances, Navy ships

may be required to remain offshore to provide access to sophisticated

medical care in case of injury or wounding of peacekeeping troops. Some

Navy ships, especially submarines, necessarily must operate without

underway logistic support from other Navy ships. Thus, the special area

compliance plan must consider any impacts that it may impose on mission

effectiveness and operational flexibility.

The special area compliance plan must be compatible with warship

design. Navy ships are designed to maximize their ability to perform

their missions, especially combat missions. Ships are self-contained

units with severe limits on space, weight and power requirements for

their equipment. While naval architecture and ship design always

require compromise among competing priorities, Navy ships must be

equipped, manned and constructed to function effectively and survive in

far more rigorous circumstances than commercial ships. Navy ships must

devote considerable space and weight to specialized combat systems

equipment and damage control features. They have far larger crews than

commercial vessels because more systems must be operated, and most

routine equipment maintenance must be done by the ship's crew at sea.

Many classes of Navy ships are already classified as ``space and

weight critical,'' which means that any equipment added to the ship

(for example, to manage solid waste) must be compensated for by

removing other equipment already devoted to some other portion of the

ship's mission. Many ships also have only modest additional power

available to drive additional equipment and would have to turn off

other important systems to use a waste control system with high power

requirements. Thus the Navy's special area compliance plan must

carefully address the size, weight and power requirements of any

additional equipment.

The crew size on Navy ships, an important factor in determining the

size of the waste stream, varies tremendously. Submarines have crews of

approximately 120. Cruisers have crews of approximately 380. Large

amphibious ships have crews of approximately 2000. Aircraft carriers

have crews approaching 6000. The Navy's special area compliance plan

must address solutions that can be adapted successfully to several

different capacities.

Because they operate independently in a dynamic, often physically

hostile marine environment, Navy ships and the equipment on them must

be designed to withstand stresses and operating conditions not

encountered on shore. The Navy has experienced difficulty with some

``off the shelf'' equipment not specifically designed for shipboard

use. Shipboard equipment must also be reliable, maintainable by Navy

crews, and capable of being logistically supported by the Navy supply

system. The Navy's special area compliance plan must address

reliability and maintainability of any new equipment in a marine

environment.

The Navy faces a fiscal environment where many meritorious programs

must compete for a declining total amount of resources, in terms of

both funding and personnel. Development, acquisition, installation and

operation of new equipment, therefore, must be cost efficient. The

Navy's special area compliance plan must address the resources needed

to implement it.

For the reasons discussed above, to be feasible for use by the Navy

for vessels throughout the fleet, equipment or strategies to implement

an alternative must balance operational, design, cost, and

environmental considerations in the same manner that equipment designed

for propulsion, communications, weapons or other shipboard functions

are evaluated. The criteria normally considered by the Navy for

shipboard systems include those set out in the Appendix to this notice.

Alternatives To Be Studied

In developing the special area compliance plan, the Navy proposes

to analyze three different categories of alternatives. The first two

categories would ensure full compliance with Regulation 5 under Annex

V. The third alternative would not ensure full compliance with

Regulation 5 under Annex V, but may preserve many or all of the

environmental values protected by Regulation 5 in the event that full

compliance is not feasible. The Navy remains committed to full

compliance, but is taking this opportunity to increase the information

available on ways to mitigate discharges in special areas. The Navy

will also analyze combinations of the technologies from the distinct

alternatives. The general categories of alternatives are:

On Board Destruction of Waste Alternative

This category of alternatives focuses on technologies that result

in virtually complete destruction of waste aboard the vessel. These

might include incineration or more technologically advanced thermal

destruction. Study of these technologies would include study of the

proper handling of any residue as well any safety concerns and cross

media pollution.

Store and Retrograde Waste Alternative

The second category of alternatives focuses on technologies that

permit storage and retrograde of waste, either on board the generating

ship or by service force ships. These would include study of

refrigeration, compaction, odor barrier bags and other means to

facilitate storage and retrograde of waste for disposal on shore.

Process Solid Waste Until It Is ``Environmentally Benign'' and

Discharge Alternative

The third category of alternatives focuses on technologies that are

designed to process waste to produce an effluent that is

environmentally benign if discharged to the sea. The study of this

alternative would also include fate and effect studies of the discharge

and the relative effect of such discharges in comparison to other

discharges from land or sea sources.

Public Participation

The Navy solicits public input to the special area compliance plan.

Among other topics, public comments could address the scope of the

alternatives to be considered, the studies considered necessary, the

measures of merit by which to evaluate the alternatives, and suggested

technologies or strategies for compliance. As described above, the Navy

will hold a public meeting to obtain and consider public comments on

the Navy's compliance with the MARPOL requirements. Members of the

public are invited to attend.

Following the public meeting the Navy will analyze the alternatives

(including combinations of the alternatives), conduct required research

and prepare a draft special area compliance plan. Comments should be

submitted in writing to the Officer in Charge, Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Carderock Division, Annapolis Detachment, 3A Leggett Circle,

Annapolis, MD 21402-6067 (Attn: Code 634A) in time to be received not

later than 30 days after the date of the public meeting. The Navy

expects to formally consult with the other concerned agencies on the

draft special area compliance plan in late 1995 and to make the draft

special area compliance plan available for public comment in Spring,

1996. After public review and comment, the Navy will submit the plan to

Congress.

Appendix--Equipment Suitability Considerations

1. Installation feasibility

a. Back fitting existing vessels

b. Design in new vessels

2. Performance (adapted to waste management equipment)

a. Throughput or processing capacity

b. Pitch and roll sensitivities

c. Flexibility in handling various blends of wastes

d. Resulting waste products and/or residues

e. Ability to handle classified documents

3. Space and physical support requirements

a. Floor space (footprint)

b. Height

c. Volume

d. Requirement for multi-deck installation

e. Supporting hardware

f. Staging/stowage area for supplies or raw material

4. Shipboard load/stability factors

a. Absolute weight

b. Center of gravity/moment as installed on ship

5. Reliability

a. Mean time between critical failures (MTBCF)

b. Types of failures (critical, noncritical, discrepancies,

persistent)

c. Qualitative assessment of impact on crew

d. Effects of heat, humidity, ocean climate and shipboard

vibration

6. Maintainability (at sea)

a. Preventive maintenance requirements

b. Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)

c. Mean Logistics Delay Time (MLDT); average time to get spare

parts

d. Maximum Allowable Time to Make Repairs (Mmax)

7. Staffing

a. Number of manhours required for operation

b. Availability of required skills aboard ship

c. Training requirements

8. Compatibility with military mission

a. Electromagnetic radiation

b. Electronic/electrical interference

c. Acoustic signature

d. Visible emissions

9. Interoperability with other shipboard systems

10. Survivability in a marine/combat environment

11. Logistics support

a. Availability or repair parts

b. Technical data and maintenance requirements

c. Supply support

d. Support equipment (e.g., special tools)

e. Spares and consumables requirement

12. Safety and Health considerations

a. Noise levels produced

b. Fire/explosion hazards

c. Chemical/biological hazards

d. Odor production

e. Temperature of equipment/system surfaces and contribution to

ship heating/cooling load

f. Physical hazards, including those associated with moving or

rotating parts

13. Costs associated with:

a. Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)

b. Procurement

c. Installation

e. Operation

f. Logistic support.

Dated: July 15, 1994.

Lewis T. Booker, Jr.,

LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 94-17711 Filed 7-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-AE-P