Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 83
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea 4 Elements of an Implementation Strategy Given the diversity among vessels passing through U.S. waters and the ports they visit, it is clear that no single Annex V implementation approach will work across the board. No one reward or punishment will bring all mariners and ports into compliance with Annex V. The interventions chosen must be appropriate to the targeted maritime sector and sustainable within resource limitations. At the same time, the various interventions need to be integrated into a coherent national strategy, to conform with U.S. policy calling for the establishment of integrated waste management practices wherever possible. Using the hazard evolution matrix described in Chapter 3 and drawing on first-hand observations and research, the committee considered how Annex V compliance could be achieved within each sector of vessels and ports. To assess barriers and opportunities, the committee sought input from each community. Levels of preparedness and capabilities varied widely among the various groups as well as the government agencies tasked to enforce the rules. It became clear that many different individuals, not just vessel masters or port managers, can influence compliance levels. This chapter provides an initial assessment of promising intervention points and implementation methods for each maritime sector. (Later chapters offer a national perspective on how these elements could be woven together into a national strategy.) Key to the committee's assessment is the analytic approach of Kasperson and Pijawka (1985), who focused on intelligence gathering and control capabilities as the basis for selection of an effective management strategy. The chapter opens with a brief description of this approach.
OCR for page 84
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea INTRODUCTION According to the Kasperson and Pijawka model, the selection of an effective management strategy depends on an assessment of the amount of intelligence (i.e., first-hand information) that can be collected to support interventions, and the degree of control—direct or indirect—that can be exercised over the target community. The same approach can be used to identify elements of an effective Annex V implementation strategy. There are obvious limits on the federal government's information-gathering and control capabilities. The mandates of Annex V are difficult to enforce directly, and MARPOL depends on seafarers to continue to comply even when beyond sight of land. In the United States, federal enforcement depends on reporting of incidents and vessel boardings1 in port to a far greater extent than on surveillance at sea. Furthermore, because vessel operators may select from a range of compliance options, no single indicator can serve as proof that a vessel has complied with or violated the law. Individual infractions at sea are almost impossible to detect, and violators are difficult to prosecute unless witnesses come forth. Even when garbage washes ashore that may have been discharged from a vessel, the burden remains on the enforcement agency to prove which mariner is the violator—often an impossible task. Thus, implementation of Annex V cannot rely solely on the government's ability to identify violators and enforce the law. Fortunately, the government is not the only party capable of gathering intelligence. As will become evident in this chapter, private managers, vessel operators and passengers, or other members of the maritime community may be in better positions to monitor practices than are government officials. In ensuring compliance with pollution laws, the first line of control is direct government regulation. In some maritime sectors, government licenses, certificates, or other approvals may be withheld if a mariner, vessel, or port fails to comply with the law. Even when that authority is absent, there may be opportunities to exert indirect control if a fleet is subject to federal regulation for another purpose directly tied to mariners' livelihood. Federal control capabilities vary by sector. Some fleets, notably cargo vessels and passenger cruise lines, are regulated directly by the Coast Guard. Military and public fleets, as arms of government, also are subject to direct control. Many commercial fishing vessels are regulated indirectly by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through fisheries management and, on matters of 1 MARPOL inspections are conducted as a component of port safety boardings. Coast Guard inspectors use a checklist. Garbage logs are required on many U.S.-flag vessels. Foreign-flag vessels are not required to keep written records, so the inspector interviews crews and officers (language barriers can be a problem).
OCR for page 85
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea safety, by the Coast Guard. Offshore oil and gas platforms in federal waters are inspected for pollution compliance as part of Minerals Management Service (MMS) regulation of the industry. The recreational boating community is subject to little direct federal control, because relevant authorities have been delegated in large part to the states. In sum, government capacity for intelligence gathering and control is uneven and limited, but creative strategies may be devised to capitalize on any opportunities that exist. Identification and analysis of the opportunities could serve to stimulate their use. For example, forms are available from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for reporting inadequate port reception facilities, but mariners rarely fill them out. This is a potential source of intelligence that has not been exploited. An examination of why this mechanism is ignored, and how this situation might be reversed, could suggest ways of improving Annex V compliance. In the forthcoming analysis, a matrix is presented for each fleet containing a range of intervention options. (As in Chapter 3, the columns are the headings from the modified Kasperson and Pijawka model and the rows are the five types of intervention options.) Some of the measures suggested have been tried—albeit usually in isolated locations—while others were conceived by the committee. There has been some pre-screening, to the extent that all the options listed are plausible and worthy of serious consideration; however, practical considerations may argue against or eliminate some of the ideas.2 The committee's views concerning the various intervention options will become evident in the commentary on each matrix and in later chapters. The final screening criteria and recommendations may be found in Chapter 9. ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTIONS Recreational Boats and Their Marinas Intelligence There is no formal intelligence-gathering network for recreational boaters, but the community is monitored by private groups and some research has been conducted. Available information suggests that recreational boaters are very concerned about the marine environment and many want to comply with Annex V, but that awareness of the mandate is far from universal and educational informa- 2 Interventions actually fall into five groups: (1) activities now conducted effectively that should be encouraged further, (2) activities currently under way that require improvement, (3) activities currently under way that should cease, (4) activities not being conducted that should be, and (5) activities that might be useful but are considered too costly or impractical.
OCR for page 86
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea tion is inadequate (Boat Owners Association of the United States, 1990; Wallace, 1990). Most recreational boaters, because they make short trips, simply hold garbage on board until they return to land. But anecdotal reports suggest that compliance within this sector needs to be improved. One member of the Committee on Shipborne Wastes observed that his port has continuing problems with recreational boaters, especially sport fishermen, who dump refuse into the harbor in full view of the shore. Control Little direct control can be exercised over recreational boaters, because vessels are privately owned and management of marinas and other port side facilities is highly decentralized. Coast Guard and customs officials and state marine police occasionally interact with recreational boaters, but the only routine government contact occurs through state boat registration for tax collection purposes, and programs such as the courtesy motorboat examinations offered by the Coast Guard Auxiliary, a volunteer organization that supports the agency's efforts. Moreover, because recreational boaters are so diverse, there is no single way of reaching them, even indirectly. Approximately 38 percent of these boats are used for fishing (American Red Cross, 1991), but many recreational fishermen do not consider themselves boaters and therefore may not, for example, read boating magazines. Persuasion and peer pressure are viewed as the most effective management tools in this community. An example of an ongoing initiative of this type is the Boater's Pledge Program, an effort to persuade boaters to promise to stop discharging garbage in the Gulf of Mexico. Established educational programs, such as boating safety courses taught by the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the nonprofit U.S. Power Squadron, also can be avenues for dissemination of Annex V information. Analysis of Interventions Table 4-1 suggests interventions that might improve Annex V implementation in the recreational boating sector. Technological options include development of food and fishing equipment to permit safe and efficient storage of supplies in bulk. While on-board space is especially constrained in this sector, installation of garbage treatment equipment may be appropriate, especially for boats taking extended voyages. Among organizational and operational interventions, the distribution of Annex V information through licensing and registration processes could be a straightforward way to reach many boaters. Use of disposable items clearly could be reduced through careful purchasing. Beach cleanups could be held more often
OCR for page 87
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea and in more places. Another approach would be to promote the retrieval of debris observed while on the water; this has been done in the Gulf of Mexico through the offering of rewards in fishing tournaments. Education is a critical tool, due to the poor intelligence and minimal control capabilities in this sector. Information about Annex V and compliance strategies can be distributed through existing channels, such as boating safety courses and the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service (described in Chapter 6), and new activities, such as volunteer efforts by boating groups. International channels, such as racing associations, could be employed as well. Instructors can exploit group dynamics (i.e., peer pressure and the desire of individuals to conform with group behavior). In addition, it might be useful to train Coast Guard and customs officials and state marine police in techniques for persuading boaters to comply. Selected regulatory and enforcement interventions might be effective. For example, boat racers must comply with racing rules, which could be amended to mandate Annex V compliance and disqualify violators. Such a measure would affect only a small segment of the boating community, however. To reach more boaters, state boating and marine officials might be authorized to assess flues for Annex V violations. Peer reporting could be a useful supplementary tool; the Coast Guard plans to publicize the telephone number for reporting violations to the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802). Economic interventions include several that might promote recycling—offering boaters credits on marina fees for return of recyclables, holding deposits for return of garbage to shore, and charging extra for return of unsorted garbage. While such schemes might be complicated to implement, recycling merits promotion because it reduces amounts of garbage (which may be discharged overboard, legally or otherwise) and has become a standard component of integrated land-based waste management (see Chapter 5). Other options include imposing surcharges on disposable items sold at marina stores, and increasing and publicizing fines for Annex V violations. Commercial Fisheries and Their Fleet Ports Intelligence The federal government has scrutinized the practices of U.S. commercial fisheries for decades, but the focus has been on ensuring the strength of biological stocks rather than reviewing garbage disposal practices. Some information is available on numbers of vessels and their general operations while at sea, but reports of garbage management practices are largely anecdotal (see sidebar). Until recently, neither vessels nor operators were regulated directly by the Coast Guard, and the fishing community argued strenuously against government oversight of vessel conditions and operations. It is only since 1989 that the Coast Guard has had congressional authority to oversee the safety of fishing vessel
OCR for page 88
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 4-1 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to Recreational Boats and Their Marinas and Waterfront Facilities Hazard Evolution Model Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Technological Create products that require little or no packaging. Develop food and fishing equipment that permit use of bulk items. Organizational and Operational Choose bulk liquids and beverages. Choose food with few byproducts. Prepare foods ashore. Choose recyclable, compactible, and reusable containers. Repackage condiments in small reusable containers. Remove equipment and replacement parts from packaging and dispose of the wrapping ashore. Cut back on purchases of items that can be discarded. Encourage sale of items with minimal packaging at convenience stores near marinas. Educational (Target Population/Content) Instill respect for clean environment. Make boaters aware of alternative ways to satisfy their needs. Address behavior change in ecotourism presentations. Select bulk and repackage in reusable containers. Use ''retensiles''—cloth napkins, cotton dish towels, sponges, reusable cutlery, mugs, and drinking glasses. Avoid disposable eating materials. Buy resealable packages to hold food waste that may spoil. Buy recyclable, compactible, packaging.
OCR for page 89
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Technological Build garbage storage areas into new boats. Develop and install appropriate on-board garbage handling equipment. Organizational and Operational Include Annex V information in boating license and registration packets. Return all materials for shoreside disposal. Provide waste management at marinas to encourage boaters to return their garbage. Retrieve debris observed while on the water. Hold beach cleanups. Educational (Target Population/Content) Serve meals in individual reusable lunch kits that also can hold garbage. Encourage volunteer groups to implement Annex V educational programs. Distribute Annex V information through boating safety courses, registration Sea Grant agents, and international channels. Train officials how to persuade boaters to comply.
OCR for page 90
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Government and Private Regulation and Enforcement Require recycling in municipal laws and permits for marinas. Economic (Market Forces) Encourage boaters to buy items that can be reused, recycled, or compacted; buy in bulk; and avoid foamed plastic and other disposables. Impose surcharge on disposables sold at marina stores. Encourage marina recycling programs with incentives (e.g., offer credits on marina fees). Marine stores and chandleries could stock reusable products. Encourage equipment manufacturers to recycle or offer credit for returned (used) equipment. construction and operation (National Research Council, 1991), so the agency has had little time to become familiar with the diverse operations of fishing fleets. Fisheries employ a wide variety of gear and methods and therefore produce assorted wastes. But the vast majority of fishing vessels take short trips, so most should be able to refrain from discharging any garbage at sea. Exceptions to this rule include the vessels in some fleets that eviscerate or process the catch and discard the processing waste at sea. On some vessels, the combined fishing/ processing waste can far outweigh the garbage generated by the crew.
OCR for page 91
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Government and Private Regulation and Enforcement Establish citizen patrols to monitor Annex V compliance and report violations. Publicize the toll-free telephone number for reporting violations to the Coast Guard. Amend racing and association rules to mandate compliance with Annex V and disqualify violators. Require waste management plans in event permits and licenses. Extend authority to levy fines to state boating and marine authorities. Economic (Market Forces) Increase and publicize rewards for reporting violations. Publicize fines levied against violators. Make boaters aware of costs of damage to boats by debris. Greatly increase fines for Annex V violations. Post cleanup costs and pass them on to marina tenants. Hold deposits for return of garbage to shore. Charge extra for unsorted garbage returned to shore. Promote compliance as a means of reducing boat maintenance costs (by keeping water clean). Offer rewards for recovered debris. Despite the shortage of official intelligence, informal communications networks proliferate in this sector. Commercial fisheries typically require that a catch be landed at a fishing port rather than a general-purpose waterfront. A sense of community can develop among fishermen working out of local ports, and vessel operators using the same facility usually become well acquainted. This community often is extended, because fishing can be a family business. In addition, the harbor master or other individual acting as a port authority often is
OCR for page 92
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea FISHERIES GARBAGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES Commercial fisheries have employed various strategies to comply with Annex V, some by installing shipboard trash compactors or incinerators, others by retaining garbage on board until they reach port. The biggest problem is handling of garbage in port. In some remote ports, there is no landfill space for vessel garbage, and waste hauling from fishing piers is generally irregular across the nation. Disposal of nets is a major problem, in that there is no national infrastructure for recycling them. However, a regional infrastructure has been established in the Pacific Northwest; fishermen in Alaska and Washington are recycling about 680.4 metric tons (150,000 pounds) annually of nylon gill-net webbing, which is marketed to Taiwan and Hong Kong for use in bicycle seats, electronics and appliance parts, kitchen utensils, and other items (F.I.S.H. Habitat Education Program, 1994). Most fishing vessels operating in the coastal ocean, Great Lakes, and other inland waters have little extra storage space, so discharge of garbage ashore depends on the availability of adequate reception facilities. Because many of these vessels are operated from remote ports in Alaska, Maine, and Southern Louisiana, and along inland waterways, vessel-generated garbage frequently accumulates on shore. Fishing gear is retrieved each day to extract the catch, or, if large numbers of traps are used, at the end of the season. Inevitably, some gear is lost. An unusual case among coastal fisheries is the menhaden fleet operating from Maine to Texas. These large ships have extra storage space, in part because crew accommodations are provided aboard carrier vessels. Garbage is stored on board for disposal in port, where the vessel owners maintain sophisticated facilities not only for processing the catch but also for handling garbage. Some haul their own garbage, while others contract for waste disposal. Among the near-coastal fisheries, the shrimp fleet is alleged by the National Park Service to be a major contributor to the debris in the Gulf of Mexico. Empty food containers and other wrapping from ship suppliers frequently are found on beaches during routine cleanups. Shrimp vessel operations also may contribute pieces of netting and cordage discarded during repairs to damaged shrimp trawls. Vessels in the Alaskan Pacific groundfish fishery can be very large (up to 300 feet long) and may sail for weeks at a time, and fish-processing ships must carry all packaging materials as well as substantial stores of food and spare parts. As a result, these vessels must manage considerable amounts of garbage. On some ships, waste materials are burned using "burn barrel" technology (Chang, 1990). familiar with the operations of boat owners. Thus, there are many informal sources and conduits of information among fishermen. A potential official intelligence-gathering capability may be found in the complicated NMFS regulatory regime, which establishes fishing seasons and catch allocations designed to permit the maximum allowable harvest of the standing stock, now solely reserved for U.S.-based fisheries. The legal framework for fisheries management within the 200-nautical-mile-wide Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265), was developed in the mid-1970s to control access to U.S. fishing stocks,
OCR for page 93
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea especially by foreign commercial fleets and fish processors. What has evolved is a regulatory system that emphasizes annual stock estimates, catch quotas, and seasons and perpetuates some operational inefficiencies or creates new ones. But at least fishing operations are monitored. In some fisheries, management plans call for on-board observers who remain on vessels as long as they are at sea. In other fisheries, the catch is assessed when landed at the pier. In both cases, a survey program is in place that could be a mechanism for providing information on net and gear disposal alternatives. In practice, however, this may not be feasible. Control Control of fishing vessels is decentralized among private owners, who are difficult to reach for the purpose of persuading them to comply with Annex V. Neither Coast Guard nor Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) boarding parties routinely inspect fishing vessels. Some degree of public control can be exerted, however, because these vessels typically must operate within federally managed fisheries in accordance with plans created by public agencies, and NMFS agents routinely meet arriving vessels to verify the weight and type of fish caught. In addition, the United States can exert some control over nearby foreign fisheries through joint fishing or scientific agreements. The present fisheries management regime is not highly effective, in that compliance has been difficult to achieve (Sutinen et al., 1990). More to the point, the regime is not designed to support implementation of Annex V; in fact, it is obstructive. The regime has been criticized widely for establishing gear practices that encourage fishermen to disregard safety and environmental protection in pursuit of the catch. Some regional fisheries management plans create situations in which it may be to a fisherman's advantage to deliberately cut away and discard any remaining gear at the end of the season (even though such discards are prohibited by Annex v). But these regulatory practices may be ending as a result of severe economic dislocation among fishermen and the collapse of fish stocks, and implementation of Annex V is proceeding. The first major Annex V enforcement action in this fleet was taken in April 1993 against a fishing vessel operator based in Seattle; the operator was fined $150,000 for 85 counts of instructing crew members to throw all garbage over the side (Weikart, 1993). The incident, first reported by several disgruntled fisheries employees, attracted considerable attention on the Pacific Coast. The NMFS also has taken selective action to increase its control. In the summer groundfish fisheries off the Pacific Coast, fisheries observers sail with the larger processing vessels for the entire season, to witness the operations and verify that the operators catch fish in accordance with the law. Authorities had so mistrusted this fleet that fishermen agreed to the surveillance so they could continue fishing. However, such direct federal presence is costly and therefore rare.
OCR for page 129
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Technological Keep shipboard systems well- maintained Develop and install appropriate garbage handling equipment or integrated waste management systems. Pretreat legal discharges by grinding and shredding garbage, to minimize drifting in the water. Provide incinerator with ash storage space (to retain ash for off- loading into port reception facility or legal discharge in deep water). Organizational and Operational Audit shipboard practices regularly. Provide many trash cans. Prohibit discharges unless supervised by appropriate officer. Establish shipboard collection of recyclable materials for return to port side recycling networks. Educational (Target Population/Contents) Train crew in on-board garbage management. Provide Annex V placards, posters, and public address announcements Develop recycling programs for items (cans) that may be discharged overboard legally.
OCR for page 130
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Human Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Government and Private Regulation and Enforcement Economic (Market Forces) chasing practices (e.g., no foamed plastic cups are used) and has reduced the amounts of packaging and plastics brought on board. Less is known about non-federal research vessels. Garbage handling can be a problem due to vessel mode of operation. While at sea, sampling or monitoring tasks may require that a research vessel remain on station or restrict its motion and curtail overboard discharges; the vessel may be unable to return to port before garbage storage space is full. Oceanographic vessels are notoriously cramped, with every on-board space obligated to science missions or operational needs. Moreover, the duration of some expeditions—many over 10 days and some over 50 days—makes garbage storage difficult and untenable, and the mission profile of some oceanographic vessels leaves little space for garbage treatment equipment. Anecdotal reports and the NOAA survey (Art Anderson Associates, 1993) suggest that on-board equipment, such as incinerators, tends to be primitive. The demands of Annex V are particularly taxing for research vessels operating in extreme situations. The NOAA ship Surveyor, homeported in Seattle, is obligated to conduct scientific missions in the Antarctic, designated as a special
OCR for page 131
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Government and Private Regulation and Enforcement Make illegal overboard discharge of garbage a firing offense. Require crew and passenger education for entry into U.S. waters or ports. Require flag states to issue waste management certificates. Foster development of reliable and affordable port reception facilities. Keep records of garbage transactions. Economic (Market Forces) Impose internal fines for violations of garbage handling rules Improve on-board garbage treatment equipment, to reduce costs. Establish port side recycling networks. area (with zero-discharge restrictions). On the positive side, because research vessels are operated by small, cohesive communities, informal networks exist for the sharing of information on strategies for reducing waste and overboard discharges. Some research vessels operate in the vicinity of home ports. Other vessels rarely visit their home ports and only infrequently call at any port. In instances where operations center around a home port, shoreside managers can address the unique challenges of complying with Annex V. For example, in Seattle, NOAA's waste reception requirements are met by a commercial contractor at NOAA's Pacific Marine Center, so it may be possible for managers to audit informally the materials discharged by their vessels. In general, while sensitivity to environmental concerns has increased within the research fleet in recent years, there are anecdotal reports of continuing overboard disposal of items such as used, expendable scientific instruments. Annex V does not address disposal of research equipment but IMO implementation guidelines encourage the return of garbage to port reception facilities ''whenever practicable.''
OCR for page 132
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Control In recent years, the federal government has taken on increased responsibility for the environmental well-being of remote locations in which the United States conducts research. Antarctica, for example, is being cleaned up rapidly after decades of poor garbage disposal practices. Annex V offers a chance to effect a similar change within the government's oceanographic fleet. In the United States, much of the active oceanographic fleet is federally funded. Through direct budget authority, NOAA's budget covers the waste management costs of the agency's fleets. National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsorship of research cruises pays for the waste management costs of the University National Oceanographic Laboratory Systems fleet. Thus, the federal government can exert budgetary control over shipboard practices and can include funding for Annex V compliance in the appropriations for research vessels. The government also can require that research proposals include information on how scientists plan to minimize and handle garbage and give priority to those with appropriate plans. Direct on-site control is limited, however, because most research vessels are not subject to routine government inspections, boardings, or oversight. The principal exception is the NOAA fleet (see sidebar). On federally supported missions, the government can exert some control through selection of supplies and materials and requirements for MARPOL briefings. For instance, NSF has banned the use of foamed plastic "peanuts" as packaging materials for scientific gear aboard NSF-sponsored voyages. The EPA provides information about MARPOL to new ship personnel, researchers, and visitors along with the routine safety briefing. But control is limited when the vessel must rely on disposal facilities in civilian or foreign ports. In some instances, it may be difficult to obtain any garbage disposal services at all. The Surveyor, returning from an extended voyage in a zero-discharge zone, once arrived in a South American port and was refused permission to off-load any garbage. Jammed with about 10 cubic meters (13 cubic yards) of waste, the ship was dubbed "the garbage scow" by the local press. Control also is limited by the characteristics of the current fleet. Engineering and space constraints make it awkward, at best, for owners and operators of oceanographic vessels to install expensive on-board treatment equipment. Expenses for routine maintenance and other repairs virtually preclude the possibility of finding sufficient equipment funds in a vessel's budget to cover refitting the vessel for Annex V compliance. If such upgrades are to be made without depletion of operating accounts, then special funds earmarked for Annex V equipment will need to be provided. On the positive side, there may be minimal need for direct control of behavior in this sector, because marine researchers and oceanographic vessel crews tend to value environmental protection, and they have expressed willingness to comply with the legal mandates. They understand the importance of Annex V
OCR for page 133
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea CONTROL OF THE NOAA FLEET The NOAA fleet is subject to complete government control, particularly when these vessels use their home ports. The complement aboard a NOAA vessel includes uniformed service officers, civilian merchant mariners, and visiting scientists; the officers, who answer directly to higher commands, have authority over the entire crew. As a matter of policy, each NOAA command develops its own solid waste management procedures, although they have begun to receive direct technical support from the central engineering staff, particularly with regard to selection of pollution prevention equipment. All NOAA vessels are aging, and it will be difficult to retrofit them with either waste treatment equipment or on-board storage spaces to hold garbage for extended periods of time. Because it now appears that Navy R&D will not produce equipment appropriate for NOAA's missions, the research fleet will be compelled to use commercial equipment. However, NOAA has found available commercial incinerators to be unreliable, ineffective, and time consuming to operate. NOAA plans to foster Informal controls by introducing fleetwide Annex V awareness training for new officers and crews and well as visiting scientists. At present, no central MARPOL training is offered. Instead, each vessel's command is expected to provide a boarding briefing for all newly arriving personnel and visiting scientists. This briefing emphasizes emergency procedures but it also provides an opportunity to explain waste management practices and garbage disposal restrictions. compliance and have helped present evidence of marine debris to other seafarers. Internal sanctions and peer pressure not only encourage compliance but also foster innovations and improvements in garbage handling practices. Analysis of Interventions Table 4-9 outlines possible interventions to improve Annex V implementation on research vessels. Among the technological options, it is obvious that improved on-board garbage treatment equipment and appropriate storage space are needed. These features could be designed into any new vessels and retro fitted where possible. Promising organizational interventions include continued reduction in use of disposable supplies. In addition, where feasible or required, discharge of all garbage except food could be halted. For example, when adequate storage space and garbage treatment equipment is available (e.g., on short voyages or well-designed new vessels), the crew and guest scientists might be able to refrain from even legal overboard discharge of garbage, including used equipment. Federally supported research vessels could set an example in this regard. Education is also important, particularly because of the turnover in guest scientists. Vessel operators also need to be educated about compliance strategies,
OCR for page 134
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 4-9 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to Research Vessels and Their Ports of Call Hazard Evolution Model Human Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation Technological Reduce or eliminate convenience packaging of supplies and foods. Provide alternate packaging where possible (given packaging standards for electronic equipment). Organizational and Operational Modify comfort and convenience levels. Reduce number of daily meals (now set by union contract). Reduce crew sizes. Use only vendors committed to packaging and storage techniques that minimize waste. Remove disposables from ship stores. Sort garbage at site of generation. Educational (Target Population/Content) Inform crews of the need for and benefits of changes (in terms of health, nutrition, cost savings, environmental protection). Inform managers of options for alternate packaging, provisioning, and deployment procedures. Inform crews and guest scientists of ways to minimize waste materials brought on board. Government or Private Regulation and Enforcement Renegotiate union agreement provisions that trigger waste generation. Amend voyage operating agreements to minimize equipment packaging scientists bring on board. Prohibit use of disposable items.
OCR for page 135
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Technological Keep shipboard systems well maintained. Incorporate garbage handling equipment and storage spaces into new vessels. Provide sufficient garbage storage space and efficient on-board garbage treatment equipment. Organizational and Operational Provide reminders with posters and placards. Introduce efficient on-board garbage handling procedures. Assure that port reception facilities are adequate. Implement a zero discharge standard where feasible or necessary. Educational (Target Population/Content) Educate management about legal mandates, compliance strategies, and methods for educating and training personnel. Educate crews and scientists about mandates, compliance methods, environmental consequences of discharge, and penalties for violations. Develop recycling programs for items (cans) otherwise discharged overboard legally. Promote recognition of marine debris problem at scientific conferences. Government or Private Regulation and Enforcement Require garbage sorting and holding of certain materials for shoreside recycling. Keep records of garbage transactions. Establish and enforce internal guidelines and penalties (fleet policies).
OCR for page 136
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Human Behavior Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation Economic (Market Forces) Require proposals for federal funding for ship time to describe garbage minimization and handling plans. Give priority to proposals with appropriate plans. Demonstrate any cost benefits from switch to reusable packaging. such as waste reduction. Researchers could help educate their peers by promoting recognition of the marine debris problem and Annex V compliance strategies at scientific conferences. Regulatory interventions include limiting equipment packaging brought on board and requiring the holding of certain materials for recycling. In addition, logs of garbage transactions could be maintained, not only on research vessels covered by the present record-keeping regulations but also on voyages supported by the federal government. The utility of keeping logs on public vessels would have to be weighed, however. Economic interventions are particularly important in this sector, to make it easier for researchers and vessel crews to comply. As suggested by the analysis of intelligence and control, funds need to be provided for on-board garbage handling equipment (where needed) and efforts need to be made to assure availability of port reception facilities. Absent such measures, the willingness of oceanographers to comply will be wasted. In addition, returning monies from recycling programs to vessel crews could foster voluntary compliance. REFERENCES Alverson, D. and J.A. June, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fishermen's Conference on Marine Debris, October 13-16, 1987, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Seattle, Wash.: Natural Resources Consultants.
OCR for page 137
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Breakdown in Compliance Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Garbage into Sea Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Economic (Market Forces) Return monies from recycling to vessel crew for their discretionary use. Budget funds for on board garbage handling equipment as means to meet legal mandate. Make port reception facilities affordable and available. Provide affordable and reliable on-board treatment equipment. Encourage on-board procedures to limit legal overboard discharge. American Red Cross. 1991. American Red Cross National Boating Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Red Cross. Anderson, C. 1992. Presentation by Carl Anderson, Minerals Management Service, to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes of the National Research Council, at the Governor Calvert House of the Historic Inns of Maryland, Annapolis, Md., May 7-8, 1992. Art Anderson Associates. 1993. NOAA Fleetwide Shipboard Waste Management. Report prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Art Anderson Associates, Bremerton, Wash. Jan. 29. Associated Press. 1994. Navy faulted for its garbage: Sailors may dump $26 million project overboard. The Washington Post. Aug. 24. A17. Boat Owners Association of the United States (BOAT/U.S.). 1990. Water quality low, clean-up interest high. BOAT/U.S. Reports. 25:1. July. Boudreaux, D. 1993. Presentation by Deyaun Boudreaux, environmental director of the Texas Shrimp Association, to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes of the National Research Council, at the University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Tex., Feb. 16, 1993. Bunch, P.A.. 1994. Vessel Environmental Compliance Program Plan. Internal planning document sent from Admiral Peter A. Bunch, chief, Office of Engineering, Logistics, and Development, to the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Feb. 1. Photocopy. Buxton, R. 1989. Plastic Debris and Lost and Abandoned Fishing Gear in the Aquatic Environment. Background paper prepared for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), CANADA Working Group on Plastic Debris. Project DFO 085214. Available from DFO, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6. April. Center for Marine Conservation (CIVIC). 1989. Marine Debris Information Offices, Atlantic Coast/Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Coast: Annual Report, October 1, 1988-September 30, 1989. Washington, D.C.: CMC.
OCR for page 138
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Chang, T.J. 1990. Low technology (burn barrel) disposal of shipboard generated (MARPOL V) wastes. Pp. 915-920 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. II), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. December. DPA Group. 1989. Plastic Debris in the Aquatic Environment—Halifax Workshop Report, May 16-18, 1989, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Project DFO 085214. Available from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6. July. Emshwiller, J.R. and M.J. McCarthy. 1993. Coke's soda fountain for offices fizzles, dashing high hopes. The New York Times. June 14. 1,9. F.I.S.H. Habitat Education Program. 1994. Net Recycling Program Summary. Fact sheet prepared by the Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat Education Program, Gladstone, Ore. September. Green, E. 1993. Presentation by Ed Green, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Corpus Christi, to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes of the National Research Council, University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Tex., Feb. 14-17, 1993. Gulf of Mexico Program. 1991. Marine Debris Action Plan for the Gulf of Mexico. Dallas, Tex.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1993. International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and For Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management [ISM] Code). Resolution A.741(18). Adopted November 4, 1993. Available from IMO, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR . Kasperson, R.E. and K.D. Pijawka. 1985. Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: Comparing natural and technological hazards. Pub. Admin. Rev. 45:7-18. Special issue. Kearney/Centaur, Inc., division of A.T. Kearney, Inc. 1994. Managing Oily Wastes and Garbage from Ships—A Guide to Waste Management Practices for Shipping Agents, Waste Haulers, Shipping Companies, and Port and Terminal Operators. Available from the U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Environmental Protection Division, Washington, D.C. Koss, L., F. Chitty, and W.A. Bailey. 1990. U.S. Navy's Plastics Waste Educational Efforts. Pp. 1132-1139 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. II), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. December. Koss, L.J. 1994. Dealing With Ship-generated Plastics Waste on Navy Surface Ships. Paper prepared for the Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Fla., May 8-13, 1994. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C. Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1986. Guidelines for Reducing or Eliminating Trash and Debris in the Gulf of Mexico. NTL No. 86-11. Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Available from MMS Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office of Leasing and Environment, New Orleans, La. Nov. 17. National Research Council (NRC). 1991. Fishing Vessel Safety: Blueprint for a National Program. Marine Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Ocean Science News. 1991. The U.S. Navy is responding to criticism of its vessels for dumping trash at sea . Ocean Science News 33(22):7. Aug. 10. Pearce, J.B. 1992. Viewpoint: Marine vessel debris, a North American perspective. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(12):586-592. December. Recht, F. 1988. Report on a Port-Based Project to Reduce Marine Debris. NWAFC Processed Report 88-13. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Wash. July.
OCR for page 139
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Sutinen, J.G., A. Rieser, and J.R. Gauvin. 1990. Measuring and explaining noncompliance in federally managed fisheries. Ocean Development and International Law 21:335-372. Swanson, R.L., R.R. Young, and S.S. Ross. 1994. An Analysis of Proposed Shipborne Waste Handling Practices Aboard United States Navy Vessels. Paper prepared for the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994a. Pollution Prevention: Chronology of Navy Ship Waste Processing Equipment Development. GAO/NSAID-94-22 IFS. Washington, D.C.: GAO National Security and International Affairs Division. August. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994b. Pollution Prevention: The Navy Needs Better Plans for Reducing Ship Waste Discharges. GAO/NSIAD-95-38. Washington, D.C.: GAO National Security and International Affairs Division. November. U.S. Navy. 1993. Shipboard and Plastics Waste Management Program Plan (draft). Prepared by Naval Sea Systems Command 05V, Environmental Engineering Group, Washington, D.C. April. U.S. Navy. 1994. Naval Message, Dept. of Navy: Shipboard Solid Waste Disposal. Message from CNO Washington DC/N4. R 031112Z May 94. UNCLAS/N05090. May 3. Photocopy. Wallace, B. 1990. How much do commercial and recreational fishermen know about marine debris and entanglement? Phase 1. Pp. 1140-1148 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. 11), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. December. Weikart, H. 1993. Presentation by Heather Weikart, National Marine Fisheries Service Observers Program, to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes of the National Research Council, Red Lion Inn, Seattle, Wash., July 15, 1993. Whitten, D.H. and R.L. Wade. 1994. Environmental Challenges Faced by the International Cruise Industry. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New Orleans, La., Nov. 17-18, 1994.
Representative terms from entire chapter: