Notice of Record of Decision for the Disposal of U.S. Navy Shipboard Solid Waste from Surface Ships

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Notice of Record of Decision for the Disposal of U.S. Navy

Shipboard Solid Waste from Surface Ships

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and

Executive Order 12114 ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal

Actions,'' the Department of the Navy announces its decision to

implement its preferred alternative for the management of non-hazardous

biodegradable solid wastes, (paper, cardboard and food), and non-

hazardous non-biodegradable solid wastes (metal and glass) from U.S.

Navy surface ships. This decision makes a significant change to present

waste disposal practices in the fleet. The Navy will equip surface

ships the size of a frigate and larger (approximately 200 ships) with

equipment to pulp paper, cardboard and food waste, and shred and bag

all metal and glass prior to discharge overboard. The equipment, once

installed, will be used to prepare material for discharge throughout

the oceans and seas of the globe, including those special areas in

effect pursuant to Regulation 5 of Annex V of the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Pulped

material will be discharged only outside of 3 nautical miles from land

and shredded material will only be discharged outside of 12 nautical

miles from land. This record of decision and the EIS on which it is

based, do not apply to submarines. A separate solid waste management

plan will be prepared for submarines at a future date.

Background

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994

required the Secretary of the Navy to submit to Congress, no later than

November 30, 1996, a plan for Navy compliance with Regulation 5 of

Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

from Ships (MARPOL), which pertains to disposal of shipboard solid

waste in ``special areas.'' The MARPOL Convention, formulated in 1973

and amended in 1978, contains five annexes. Solid waste is addressed in

Annex V, ``Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from

Ships.'' MARPOL prohibits some discharges altogether, restricts some

discharges to set distances from land, and establishes ``special

areas'' within which additional discharge limitations apply, based on

the oceanographic characteristics and ecological significance of those

areas.

Eight ``special areas'' have been designated by Annex V: the Baltic

Sea, portions of the North Sea, the Antarctic Ocean, the Red Sea, the

Black Sea, the Gulf area (including the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of

Aden), the wider Caribbean (including the Gulf of Mexico), and the

Mediterranean Sea. To date, only the first three are in effect. Areas

come into effect following a positive assessment of the waste

management capabilities of each area' littoral countries.

The MARPOL Convention limitations on ocean discharges do not

expressly apply to warships or naval auxiliaries. The Convention

requires, however, that party states ensure their warships and

auxiliaries operate consistent with the Convention so far as is

``reasonable and practicable.''

The United States became a party to MARPOL Annex V in 1997 with the

enactment of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act

(MPPRCA), which amended the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS).

In MPPRCA, Congress did not adopt the Convention's ``reasonable and

practicable'' requirement for U.S. public vessels, but instead

affirmatively required full compliance by U.S. public vessels,

including Navy vessels, with all Annex V requirements by 1994. In 1993,

the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (DDA 94) amended APPS

and, with respect to Navy ships, extended the 1994 deadline to the end

of 1994 for the plastic discharge prohibition, and to the year 2000 for

the special area requirements. Both MPPRCA and the DAA 94 allowed the

Navy to petition Congress for relief from the legislatively imposed

requirements of Annex V, if the Navy demonstrated that full compliance

for U.S. Navy warships and auxiliaries was not technologically feasible

while maintaining the necessary level of operational capability.

The DAA 94 also provided that if the plan demonstrated that

compliance by certain ships under certain conditions was not

technologically feasible, Congress could modify the applicability of

the special area requirements for Navy warships and auxiliaries.

The DAA 94 required that the Navy submit a plan for special areas

to Congress by November 30, 1996. If the Navy determined that

compliance with the requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V was not

technologically feasible for certain ships under certain conditions,

the Navy must document:

The ships for which full compliance was not

technologically feasible;

The technical and operational impediments for achieving

such compliance as rapidly as technologically feasible;

A proposed alternative schedule for achieving compliance

as rapidly as technologically possible; and

Such other information as the Secretary of the Navy

considers relevant and appropriate.

The development of a management plan for the disposal of shipboard

solid waste necessarily addressed the design and management of

warships. Navy warships have a substantially different mission from

merchant marine vessels and cruise ships, which is reflected in warship

design.

Critical factors used to develop the Navy shipboard solid waste

management plan include the composition, operation, and deployment of

the U.S. Navy fleet, waste generation rates and characteristics,

available processing technologies and current Navy solid waste

management practices. Using this basic information, the Navy

identified, in addition to source reduction, three potential categories

of alternatives for managing shipboard solid waste:

Store and retrograde (store and return to shore for

landbased processing and/or disposal);

Process and discharge at sea; and

Destroy on board.

In each of these alternatives food waste would be comminuted

(ground up) and discharged, and plastic waste would be processed using

Navy developed plastic waste processors (currently being installed on

most Navy ships). The treated plastic will be stored and returned to

shore.

The potential environmental effects of the Navy's solid waste

management plan were analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). Publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was

published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1995. The NOI broadly

described the range of alternatives to be considered and analyses to be

conducted for the EIS and also announced the time and place for two

public scoping meetings. These

[[Page 6956]]

meetings were held in Washington, DC and San Francisco, California on

October 24, 1995 and October 26, 1995 respectively. Notice of the

availability of a Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on

April 29, 1996. 45-day public review period ended on June 14, 1996.

Public hearings were held in Washington, DC and San Francisco,

California on May 28, 1996 and May 30, 1996, respectively.

The Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

regulations in 40 CFR, parts 1500-1508, Navy NEPA regulations in 32 CFR

part 775, Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12114 ``Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,'' Secretary of the Navy

Instruction 5090.6 and the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction

5090.1B ``Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual.''

The notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the

Federal Register on September 6, 1996. A 30-day public review period

for the Final EIS ended on October 6, 1996. The National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 amended section 3(c) of the Act

to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1902) to allow

certain Navy ships, as designated by the Secretary of the Navy, to

discharge into MARPOL special areas non-plastic, non-floating garbage

that has been pulped and shredded. On November 25, 1996, Secretary of

the Navy John H. Dalton signed a determination specifying which ship

types, due to military design, construction, manning, or operating

requirements, cannot fully comply with the special area requirements of

Regulation 5 of Annex V of MARPOL.

Current Situation

The Navy fleet, consisting of approximately 350 vessels (including

submarines) is deployed globally, operating under constantly variable

conditions and circumstances. Variations include the number of ships

and length of deployment. The amount of shipboard solid waste generated

is proportional to the size of the operation and its duration.

Most of the designated special areas are strategically important to

the United States. In recent years the Navy has operated extensively in

the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and in the

Caribbean region. These special areas present more significant solid

waste management difficulties for the Navy than those that are

currently in effect in the Baltic and North Seas. The Navy has

determined that underway periods of one week or longer makes it

impractical for combatant ships to comply with the ``zero discharge''

requirement (i.e., retain all waste on board). Aircraft carriers face

the greatest challenge because they have the longest underway periods

between port visits and the largest crews.

Shipboard solid waste generation rates are dependent on crew size.

The shipboard solid waste generation rate for Navy ships is 1.36

kilograms (2.99 pounds) per crew member per day. Based on this daily

rate, solid waste generated onboard an aircraft carrier with a crew of

6,280 would be 8,450 kg/day (18,590 lbs/day). A smaller frigate class

ship with a crew size of 220 would generate approximately 300 kg/day

(660 lbs/day).

Of the solid waste stream, food waste poses the least significant

disposal problem, as these discharges are readily accommodated by Navy

shops using comminuters (grinders). For plastic waste, the Navy has

actively pursued elimination for more than a decade through operations

changes, technology development, supply system changes (source

reduction), and environmental education. Through these efforts, the

Navy has reduced the discharge of plastics solid waste by approximately

70 percent. Plastic waste processors, along with new management

practices, will eliminate plastic waste discharge at sea by surface

combatants by the end of 1998.

Alternatives Considered

The Navy considered the no action alternative, process and

discharge alternative, store and retrograde alternative, and the on-

board destruction alternative and, for each alternative the available

technologies for on-board solid waste management. The analysis made it

clear that neither a single alternative nor a single individual

technology was appropriate for fleet-wide implementation. The

alternatives and technologies were evaluated using nine criteria:

safety/health, operational impacts, environmental consequences, cost,

habitability and quality of life aboard ship, shipboard requirements,

physical ship impacts (space, other ship impacts), technical maturity

(equipment), and compliance with APPS. Technologies and equipment were

assessed in the light of reliability, maintainability, and the

capability to operate under extreme adverse conditions; mission

readiness; the ability to sustain battle damage and continue to

function, issues related to stability, which concern, in part, the

appropriate arrangement of space and weight in the vessel overall, and

existing design criteria for weapons systems, propulsion plants,

machinery, auxiliary equipment, work spaces, and living areas.

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, (the alternative in use for

existing naval operations), the Navy would implement its plan to

install plastic waste processors on approximately 200 ships by 1998 and

implement store and retrograde procedures for plastics on ships unable

to accommodate the plastic waste processors. All other solid waste

would be managed according to the following discharge restrictions:

Discharge of any solid waste is not permitted within three

nautical miles (nm) of any shores;

Discharge of pulped food waste is permitted at greater

than 3 nm except in special areas and off foreign country shores where

the restriction is 12 nm; and

Discharge of other non-plastic solid waste is restricted

to greater than 25 nm.

Process and Discharge Alternative

This alternative envisions processing (i.e., pulp and/or shred)

biodegradable wastes (paper, cardboard, food) and non-biodegradable

wastes (metal and glass) prior to discharge, thereby eliminating

floating debris.

Store and Retrograde Alternative

This alternative consists of storage of all solid waste on board

while operating in special areas. The stored material is held until it

can be off-loaded for land disposal. Given the amount of waste

generated and the limited on-board storage space available, it would be

necessary to process the waste on the generating ship to reduce volume

or encapsulate food-contaminated waste for odor control and sanitation

purposes.

On-Board Destruction Alternative

On-board destruction presents a range of technological solutions

for consideration, some of which are not presently mature. Currently

available options are in the form of incineration, and would combine

the shredding and combustion of ship cardboard, paper, metal, and

glass. Under this alternative, paper and cardboard would be

incinerated. Metal and glass wastes would be shredded prior to

combustion, which would reduce the volume of the materials to be

burned, but presently available methods of combustion would not further

reduce the quantity of these materials. These materials, along with the

ash and slag generated from

[[Page 6957]]

combustion of combustible materials would require storage aboard ship

for disposal on shore or disposal at sea.

Alternatives Analysis

Analysis of the various waste management alternatives in the light

of the nine criteria led the Navy to reach the following conclusions.

The no action alternative, (continuation of existing solid waste

management practices), while the least expensive alternative, would not

allow the Navy to comply with MARPOL and APPS, as amended by MPPRCA and

DAA 94. Moreover, the no action alternative does not improve solid

waste management for special areas.

The storage and retrograde alternative would adversely affect the

quality of life of the ship's crew. Living and recreational space is

the only space in existing ships that could be converted into waste

storage areas without eliminating combat essential equipment. The cost

of this alternative would be significant, ranging from $3.5 million for

an auxiliary ship to over $13 million for an aircraft carrier. The cost

of equipment and its installation; the requirement for significantly

more shipboard storage space compared to other alternatives under

consideration; the need for pier side off-loading and storage

facilities; the impact on support ships, including costs to modify

existing ships to handle wastes; and the increased time for underway

replenishment, with increased risk to ships, helicopters and crew all

mitigate against this alternative. Because of these factors, the

storage and retrograde alternative was rejected for the larger Navy

fleet units.

The on-board destruction or incineration alternative was also

rejected. While this alternative would allow APPS compliance, it is the

most expensive alternative in terms of space requirements and cost.

Costs for the least expensive incinerator would range from $2.6 million

per ship for a cruiser to over $29 million for an aircraft carrier.

Retrofitting the Navy fleet would also disrupt a large amount of space

on every ship and cause severe and unacceptable impact on the ships

primary mission functions. This alternative includes the following

costly requirements: trained operating staff, skilled maintenance

staff, space for incineration equipment and support systems aboard

ship, and storage space for ash/metal/glass residue to be retrograded.

Presently available equipment also presents concerns for fire control.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.2),

require the identification of the ``environmentally preferred

alternative'' for major federal actions. None of the alternatives

considered can be clearly identified as the ``environmentally preferred

alternative.'' The process and discharge and no action alternatives

would result in the discharge of solid waste into the oceans of the

world, while the destroy on board (incineration) alternative could

result in impacts to air, surface waters, and land (due to ash disposal

ashore). The store and retrograde alternative would affect land

resources or the air as the waste would be disposed of in landfills or

incinerated in land-based facilities. The process and discharge

alternative is preferred over the other alternatives for the human

shipboard environment, as it reduces possible odors, crowding and

elimination of the ship's crew spaces. The processing of solid wastes

prior to ocean discharge eliminates floating debris, which is a hazard

to marine life, as well as being aesthetically undesirable.

Proposed Action

The preferred alternative (proposed action) for shipboard solid

waste management for surface ships is a combination of the process and

discharge alternative and the storage and retrograde alternative. Under

the preferred alternative, the Navy will install pulpers and shredders

on all vessels the size of frigates or larger (approximately 200

ships). These include: Frigates, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious

helicopter assault ships, aircraft carriers, fleet oilers and supply

ships, amphibious landing transport and docking ships; and fleet

command and control ships.

The Navy will retain and retrograde waste on smaller ships and

patrol craft (approximately 55 ships) when operating within MARPOL

special areas. These smaller ships include: Mine countermeasure and

mine hunting ships; rescue, salvage and towing ships; and coastal

patrol boats, and landing craft that have a limited range and mission

duration.

The installation of the pulpers and shredders will have little

effect on crew, due to the small footprint and ease of operation. Minor

ship alternations will be necessary on Navy vessels and no health and

safety impacts are anticipated. With respect to crew morale, this

alternative is considered the best among alternatives studied because

odor impacts from storing food-contaminated wastes would be

substantially reduced or eliminated, prompt removal of all solid wastes

would make the storage of wastes in inappropriate spaces unnecessary,

personal crew space would not be affected on any class of Navy ship,

and only minimal impacts to crew shared space will occur.

This alternative will enhance mission readiness for Navy ships

because waste disposal can proceed during operations, including flight

operations. Flight decks, hangars, and other operational space will not

be cluttered with the temporary storage of solid waste. This would also

enhance safety aboard ship, as access to critical equipment would not

be impeded and ship's personnel would not have to repeatedly move

containers of garbage, a difficult operation, especially during rainy

weather and/or rough seas. The cost impacts of this alternative are

significantly lower, at approximately $340 million for the existing

Navy surface fleet, than any other action alternative investigated.

Food waste will continue to be ground up and discharged at sea

while paper and cardboard will be processed by a pulper with discharge

from the pulper occurring at least three nautical miles from shore. A

shredder will be used to process metal and glass waste. The processed

metal and glass will be placed in burlap bags and discharged into the

sea. This discharge will occur at least 12 nautical miles from shore.

Environmental Impacts

The decision to implement the process and discharge alternative

will result in most Navy ships processing (i.e., pulp and/or shred)

wastes including paper, cardboard, metal, glass and food waste and

discharging the products of the processing. The effects of the process

and discharge alternative on the oceans of the world and especially

MARPOL special areas were assessed by the Navy in consultation with a

number of experts and studies. The assessment of impacts focused on the

processes that are most important to determine the fate and effect of

the two waste streams and compared these to the range of receiving

environment conditions likely to be affected by the discharges.

The Navy considered the potential direct adverse effects of waste

disposal of pulped paper and cardboard on the ocean environment to

include impacts to water column and benthic organisms, growth rate,

reproduction and feeding inhibition, oxygen depletion, and beach

litter. The potential adverse effects of waste disposal of the shredded

metal and glass (discharged in burlap bags)

[[Page 6958]]

considered were impacts to benthic organisms' smothering, ingestion and

oxygen uptake, and washing ashore as beach litter. The implementation

of the process and discharge alternative will have no direct adverse

impacts ashore.

Paper and Cardboard

The pulped paper/cardboard waste stream will consist primarily of

white paper and cardboard mixed with sea water. The material is mainly

composed of organic carbon as cellulose, with very little nitrogen or

phosphorus. Degradation rates for the pulped paper/cardboard could

vary, depending on the water temperature, from approximately 0.01

percent to 0.6 percent per day. Analysis of the material indicates that

it does not contain significant amounts of toxic chemicals.The rate of

discharge of the pulped paper/cardboard waste will be approximately 100

to 3,200 kilograms (220 to 7,040 lbs) per ship per day depending on

vessel size.

The fate analysis for the pulped paper and cardboard waste stream

considered both water column and sea floor processes under a range of

conditions representative of special areas as well as the world's ocean

environments. The most critical factor in the fate analysis is the wake

dilution rate that occurs in the first 15 to 20 minutes after discharge

of the pulped waste stream. Numerical modeling results for both the

wake and ambient mixing provided estimates of the lowest dilution of

the waste stream to be 1:60,000 (a 1:60,000 dilution rate means, for

example, one gallon of pulped paper/cardboard would be diluted with

60,000 gallons of sea water) for an aircraft carrier operating at ten

knots. The dilution factor greatly exceeds all other background

factors, such as currents and wind mixing, that might also contribute

to dilution of the material.

Wake dilution is independent of discharge location, (i.e., the

dilution rate would be the same in all special areas and the world's

oceans). Also independent of discharge location is the settlement rate

of the majority of the material due to the fact that the specific

gravity (weight) of the average-sized particle would be so much greater

than that encountered in ocean water. About 95 percent of the material

discharged would be deposited on the sea floor.

A series of bioassay were conducted by the Navy for a wide range of

organisms from bacteria to small fish to determine whether the pulped

paper/cardboard mixture would be toxic to water column and/or bottom

dwelling organisms and if so, at what concentration and duration. Test

results showed no biological effects in any organisms tested at

concentration levels expected in the water column with wake dilution.

Further, no biological effects were observed in two benthic organisms

tested at concentration levels that would be expected in the sediments

after receiving the pulped paper/cardboard discharge from 1000 ship

discharges over the same location.

The Navy investigated potential effects of pulped paper/cardboard

discharge on coral reefs and other similar benthic filter-feeding

organisms and sea grasses found in the wider Caribbean, the

Mediterranean, and Red Seas, and the Gulf region. Discharges of pulped

paper/cardboard will introduce additional suspended material into the

water column and increase sedimentation rates. Possible effects of

concern to commenters included reduction in light levels due to

increased suspended particle loading, the potential for smothering and

interference with filter feeding/respiration, and direct toxicity to

coral polyps due to contaminants associated with paper particulate.

None of the laboratory tests or bioassay showed significant toxic

effects with the pulped paper/cardboard at the concentrations

anticipated to occur in the individual ships' wakes. In addition,

detailed chemical analysis of the pulped waste stream indicates that it

is composed nearly all of non-toxic organic materials. Direct tests on

sardines and two zooplankton species representative of the Black,

North, an Baltic Seas, and Antarctica revealed no effects from the

anticipated exposure levels from pulped paper/cardboard discharges.

Metal and Glass

After shredding, the metal and glass fragments will be bagged in

biodegradable burlap bags and manually discharged over the side of the

ship. The number of bags discharged overtime and the distribution of

discharge period(s) throughout the day will vary from ship to ship. The

primary components of the shredded metal and glass waste stream would

be tin-coated steel cans (71 percent by weight) and glass (13 percent

by weight). The elemental constituents of this waste material are

similar to those occurring naturally in marine environments. Of these,

only iron would be significantly enhanced in the waste stream relative

to concentrations found in typical marine environments. It is expected

that the iron and tin in these metal cans would completely corrode in

2.5 to 10 years. The burlap bags would degrade over a period of months.

The rate of degradation of the shredded glass is slow, with most of the

material being incorporated into the sea floor rather than dissolving

in the water column.

The analysis of the fate and effects of shredded metal and glass

addressed both water column and sea floor processes. Based on tests,

biological effects expected only within the bag or near the bag

surface. The discharge of shredded metal/glass will produce little

opportunity for immediate dispersion of the material, since the metal/

glass will be contained in burlap bags that will not trap air. During

the time the bag is moving through the water column, organisms in the

water column will not be sufficiently exposed to sustain an effect.

Since the shredded waste will reach the bottom rapidly, most of the

processes that would influence the fate and effects of the shredded

metal/glass waste would occur at or near the sediment/water interface.

Once deposited on the bottom, any material that would cause effects

would be quickly diluted by the surrounding waters and have no

significant impacts on organisms on the sea floor.

The Navy also considered the effects of the discharge of the bagged

shredded metal/glass on coral reefs and other similar sensitive

organisms. Issues of concern included the potential for a bag landing

on a coral reef and the smothering of the reef beneath the bags. With

regard to the potential for a bag landing on a coral reef, it is noted

that, to avoid navigational hazards, Navy ships avoid operating in

shallow water where most coral reefs occur. Additionally, because of

discharge restrictions, the actual discharge of bagged metal/glass

would occur outside the 12 nm limit. Transport of the bags toward shore

would be minimal. Studies have shown that a bag discharged at the 12 nm

limit would reach the sea floor only 0.11 nm closer to shore than the

drop point. Impacts to coral reefs and other sensitive habitats would

only occur where the discharge occurred directly over or within very

close proximity to a reef.

Effects would not be found beyond the immediate area of the bag

itself. Where bags of shredded metal/glass settle on a coral reef or

sea grass community, the scale of the impact would be confined to the

frontal area of the bag deposited (approximately 2,000 sq.cm. or 310

sq.in.). Consequently, only the coral underlying the bag would be

affected by the settlement of the bag.

Endangered Species

The Navy also investigated the potential exposure and effects of

solid waste discharges on threatened and endangered species found in

all the

[[Page 6959]]

world's oceans, with emphasis on those found within the MARPOL special

areas. Both waste discharges were subjected to toxicity testing on a

wide range of organisms. None of the organisms showed effects of the

pulped paper/cardboard at the concentrations expected to occur in the

environment. As for the potential for ingestion of the pulped paper/

cardboard by threatened and endangered species, studies indicated that

the pulped waste stream is not considered an ingestion problem because

of the low concentrations found in the discharge wake and the size of

the species of concern. For metal and glass discharges, species

evaluated typically would not be vulnerable because there would be no

overlap between the species' habitat and the locations at which the

proposed discharges would occur, or the species feeding habits are not

compatible with ingesting large material from the sea floor.

Because the bags would sink very rapidly, species that feed on the

surface or in the water column would not have the opportunity to ingest

the material. Another consideration is that the discharges would

generally occur in waters deeper than 200 meters (656 feet) and most of

the species evaluated feed in near shore or coastal shallow water. Thus

the likelihood of shredder bags landing in typical bottom feeding

habitats is very small. Finally, the likelihood of encountering a bag

on the sea floor would be minimal, considering the low percentage of

sea floor that would be covered by bags, even with cumulative

discharges.

Based on the analyses conducted, the Navy has concluded that the

proposed discharges would have a very low potential to cause any effect

on a protected species, or modification of a critical habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative environmental impacts were considered through the

analysis of multi-ship operational scenarios. Navy ships often operate

in groups and these groups may operate in MARPOL special areas. The

results of the analysis for the pulped waste stream indicated that

pulped paper/cardboard discharges from all Navy ships operating within

special areas would be insignificant.

For the shredded metal/glass waste stream, the estimated annual

mass loading for the special areas from current Navy shipboard

operations would range from 5.8 metric tons in the Baltic Sea to 895

metric tons in the Mediterranean.

Mitigation

Several policy, operational, and design measures will avoid or

minimize impacts to the environmental: (1) The Navy will discharge

pulped paper and cardboard only when a ship is making way, thereby

ensuring thorough mixing and dispersion of the discharge in the ship's

wake; (2) Packaging of the shredded metal/glass prior to disposal will

prevent scattering of metal and glass fragments in the water column

that might be accidentally ingested by marine fish and animals; (3)

Selection of a packaging material for shredded metal and glass that is

durable (resistant to tearing), sinkable (does not contain air

pockets), and biodegradable will ensure that the bag sinks rapidly to

the sea floor and allows natural deterioration and assimilation of the

materials; and (4) Pulped paper and cardboard will be discharged at

distances greater than 3 nm from shore and shredded metal and glass

will be discharged at distances greater than 12 nm from shore.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

Two federal agencies and one special interest group provided

comments on the Final EIS. One federal agency (Department of the Army)

comments were limited to corrections in metric conversions noted in the

Final EIS. Corrections, where appropriate, have been made.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the

Navy continue its current practice of zero discharge of solid wastes in

the Antarctic region and the Baltic Sea. Additionally, EPA commented on

the Final EIS discussion on naval operations noting that the Antarctic

was not listed as an ``in effect'' special area in this discussion and

also suggested clarification on the waste discharge distance (from

land) requirement. EPA also suggested that the Navy's preferred

alternative may not be consistent with the ``Antarctic Science, Tourism

and Conservation Act'' (ASTCA) of 1996 or Annex IV to the Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT). Finally, the

EPA requested the Navy to reconsider the previous EPA comments

concerning waste discharge monitoring, discharge restrictions near

sensitive ecosystems, continue the search for a waste management system

that would allow full compliance with MARPOL, and develop an

environmentally sound ship for the 21st century.

In response to these EPA comments, the Navy notes that it is

currently in compliance with MARPOL in the ``in-effect'' special areas

(Antarctic region and the Baltic and North Seas). This ``compliance''

is due to the very limited nature of U.S. Navy operations in those

areas. However, this ``compliance'' also results in significant impacts

to the shipboard environment of Navy vessels. Chapter 4.1.1 of the EIS

documents the impacts of continuing current shipboard waste management

practices on the health, welfare, and morale of Navy sailors and on the

mission readiness, safety, and logistical operations of Navy vessels.

These effects on sailors and ships operating in any ocean of the world

are unacceptable, and the preferred alternative has been developed in

response to these and other related concerns. Also, the nature of U.S.

Navy operations may change in the existing in-effect special areas with

changing geo-political conditions, and the Navy must be prepared to

respond quickly and efficiently to such world events.

The discussion in the Final EIS on naval operations (Sec. 2.1.1)

did not include the Antarctic region because it is not an area where

naval operations are routinely conducted. Also the comment concerning

the 25 mile discharge distance restriction (Sec. 4.1) applies to the no

action alternative or what is currently practiced today by Navy

vessels. Under the proposed action, in the world's oceans, including

special areas, pulped paper and cardboard would be discharged at

distances greater than 3 nm from shore and shredded metal and glass

would be discharged in burlap bags at distances greater than 12 nm from

shore.

The navy has reviewed the Act and Treaty cited by EPA. Under the

ASTCS, ``* * * discharges of any wastes in Antarctica would be

prohibited except as otherwise authorized by the Act to Prevent

Pollution from Ships (APPS).'' Congress has modified APPS to permit the

discharge of solid wastes in accordance with the proposed action. With

regard to Annex IV of PEPAT, Article 11 of this Treaty indicates that

the Annex does not apply to warships or naval auxiliaries.

Notwithstanding these exemptions, the Navy is keenly aware of the

delicate and sensitive environment of the Antarctic region. Also,

routine naval operations are infrequent in this region due to its

remote location.

With respect to long-term monitoring of waste discharge plumes, the

Navy has reconsidered EPA's comments on the Draft EIS and still feels

that such monitoring is both unnecessary and impractical for the

reasons stated in the FInal EIS (p. 10-6 response to comments).

[[Page 6960]]

With respect to discharges near sensitive ecosystems, the Navy will

not discharge pulped paper/cardboard within 3 nm of land nor discharge

shredded metals/glass within 12 nm of land. This naval operational

restriction, combined with the fact that smaller, coastal vessels will

store and retrograde waste (the process and discharge alternative

applies to the larger oceangoing vessels the size of frigates and

above) should offer ample protection to sensitive ecosystems.

With respect to future waste management systems, the Navy has

established the goal of having environmentally sound ships of the 21st

century that will be able to minimize waste generation and treat or

destroy unavoidable waste on board. The Navy is investigating

integrated waste processing systems that would collect and treat or

destroy all shipboard wastes, both liquid and solid. Although the Navy

is pursuing this research and development (R&D), it foresees no

advanced waste destruction technology being ready for shipboard use in

the next decade. In the interim, the Navy will continue to monitor and

evaluate technology developments and initiate R&D programs where

candidate technologies look promising for future ships.

The special interest group comments, from a representative of a

shipboard waste (compaction) processing machine company, provided

corrected information on the output characteristics of their processed

wastes and the use of such equipment on ships of other world navies.

The Navy appreciates this revised information. However, an

analysis, based on this new information, did not alter the findings of

the Final EIS.

Conclusion

After comprehensive evaluation of the proposed impacts and review

of all comments, the Navy has concluded that its preferred alternative

provides for protection of the environment, preserves the Navy's

operational flexibility and the quality of life of shipboard personnel

and can be implemented at a reasonable cost.

Accordingly, the Navy will install pulpers and shredders on all

vessels the size of frigates and larger, and use the equipment

worldwide, not just in MARPOL special areas. For the Navy's smaller,

coastal vessels that have mission durations of only a few days, the

Navy will implement a store and retrograde policy for solid waste

management (except food wastes) for these ships will operating in

MARPOL special areas.

Questions regarding the Final EIS prepared for this action may be

directed to Mr. Robert Ostermueller, Head, Environmental Planning,

Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 10 Industrial

Highway, Lester, PA 19113, telephone (610) 595-0759, fax (610) 595-

0778.

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Elsie L. Munsell,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment & Safety).

[FR Doc. 97-3783 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M