[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17711]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 21, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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