Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
i CLEAN SHIPS CLEAN PORTS CLEAN OCEANS Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Committee on Shipborne Wastes Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1995
ii NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sci- ences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The program described in this report is supported by cooperative agreement No. 14-35-0001-30475 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Inte- rior and the National Academy of Sciences and by interagency cooperative agreement No. DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences. Clean ships, clean ports, clean oceans / controlling garbage and plastic wastes at sea / Commit- tee on Shipborne Wastes, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. p. cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-05137-1 (alk. paper) 1. Marine debrisâManagement. 2. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu- tion from Ships (1973) I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Shipborne Wastes. TD427.M35C58 1995 363.72â²8â²09162âdc20 95-35139 CIP Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Cover photo courtesy of the Coastal Resources Center.
iii COMMITTEE ON SHIPBORNE WASTES WILLIAM R. MURDEN, Jr., NAE, Chair, Murden Marine, Ltd., Alexandria, Virginia ANTHONY F. AMOS, Marine Science Institute, University of Texas at Austin ANNE D. AYLWARD, National Commission on Intermodal Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts (after June 1993) JAMES F. ELLIS, Boat Owners Association of the United States, Alexandria, Virginia EDWARD D. GOLDBERG, NAS, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California WILLIAM G. GORDON, Fairplay, Colorado MICHAEL HUERTA, Port Of San Francisco (until May 1993) SHIRLEY LASKA, Environmental Social Science Research Institute, University of New Orleans, Louisiana STEPHEN A. NIELSEN, Princess Cruises, Los Angeles, California KATHRYN J. O'HARA, Center for Marine Conservation, Hampton, Virginia JOSEPH PORRICELLI, ECO, Inc. (until May 1993) RICHARD J. SATAVA, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Tacoma, Washington N. C. VASUKI, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Dover, Delaware MIRANDA S. WECKER, Center for International Environmental Law, South Bend, Washington Agency Liaisons JEFF BEACH, Marine Environmental Protection Division, U.S. Coast Guard JAMES COE, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration LAWRENCE J. KOSS, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy DANIEL W. LEUBECKER, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Maritime Administration STEVE LEVY, Office of Solid Wastes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DAVID REDFORD, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director LISSA A. MARTINEZ, Consultant LAURA OST, Editor RICKY A. PAYNE, Administrative Assistant (until March 1994) AURORE BLECK, Administrative Assistant (from June 1994)
v MARINE BOARD Members RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, Chair, Offshore Technology Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas JERRY A. ASPLAND, Arco Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California ANNE D. AYLWARD, National Commission on Intermodal Transportation, Alexandria, Virginia ROBERT G. BEA, NAE, University of California, Berkeley MARK Y. BERMAN, Amoco Production Company, Houston, Texas BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations Inc., Solomons, Maryland SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Sea Grant College Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JAMES M. COLEMAN, NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana EDWARD D. GOLDBERG, NAS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York ASHISH J. MEHTA, University of Florida, Gainesville M. ELISABETH PATÃO-CORNELL, NAE, Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Terman Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California DONALD W. PRITCHARD, NAE, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Severna Park, Maryland STEPHANIE R. THORNTON, Coastal Resources Center, San Francisco. California ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey ALAN G. YOUNG, Fugro-McClelland BV, Houston, Texas Staff CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
vi The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The www.national-academies.org
PREFACE vii Preface In 1987, the U.S. government ratified Annex V (Garbage) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) and its 1978 Protocol, known jointly as MARPOL 73/78. That same year, the U.S. Congress enacted the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) (P.L. 100-220) to implement the agreement domestically. Both the treaty and the law address the need to curtail the debris littering oceans and beaches, particularly by restricting the age-old practice of tossing garbage overboard from vessels. The regulated garbage includes solid wastes (other than sewage) generated during normal operations at sea. While the congressional action denotes official U.S. acceptance of MARPOL Annex V, additional work is required to realize the related goals and objectives. A national implementation plan is needed to convert Annex V and the domestic legislation into a tangible regime through which the United States can encourage, monitor, report, and enforce compliance with the new standards. In this way, the work of diplomats and legislators can be translated into the duties of agencies, government personnel, business persons, educators, advocates, and private citizens. The U.S. implementation strategy must put into action the words of Annex V within the context of the international law of the sea, which places some constraints on unilateral action but also offers many opportunities for use and study of the oceans, control of pollution, and settling of disputes. ORIGIN OF THE STUDY No single federal agency is responsible for the comprehensive implementation of Annex V in the United States. Instead, the duties are distributed among the
PREFACE viii Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and, indirectly, the Maritime Administration and others). 1 In addition, the Congress instructed the Navy to comply with the MPPRCA. In examining the issues affecting the implementation of Annex V, these agencies identified the lack of strategic planning and organization as a major obstacle. These agencies therefore requested that the National Research Council (NRC) undertake an assessment of U.S. activities and evaluate how well Annex V implementation was progressing. Accordingly, the NRC Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems assembled a committee under the auspices of the Marine Board to conduct a comprehensive assessment of U.S. implementation of Annex V. Committee members were selected for their expertise and to achieve balanced experiences and viewpoints. (Biographical information is presented in Appendix A.) The principle guiding the constitution of the committee and its work, consistent with NRC policy, was not to exclude any bias that might accompany expertise vital to the study, but to seek balance and fair treatment. The resulting committee membership balanced the technical, scientific, and legal professional disciplines and encompassed the diverse commercial and recreational communities that must comply with Annex V. The committee sought the assistance of the federal agencies that have duties and undertake activities in conjunction with the national Annex V implementation effort. As a result, in addition to the aforementioned project sponsors, contact was maintained with the Marine Mammal Commission, the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, the Department of the Interior's National Park Service and Minerals Management Service, and the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The task of the Committee on Shipborne Wastes was to focus on the preparations the federal government must make after accepting an international standard for environmental protection. The objective was to devise a strategy to help promote and compel compliance with Annex V by surface vessels in all U.S. maritime sectors2 and promote the elimination of ocean pollution from garbage. 1 While the Maritime Administration is not assigned specific duties by law with respect to Annex V, the agency administers federal laws and programs designed to promote and maintain the U.S. merchant marine and carries out promotional, research, and training programs that can assist in Annex V implementation. 2 The study encompassed all U.S.-flag surface vessels, fixed and floating manned platforms in U.S. waters, and foreign-flag vessels that transit U.S. waters out to 200 nautical miles from shore (the Exclusive Economic Zone). While excluded from this study, U.S. Navy submarines are required by the MPPRCA to comply with certain provisions of Annex V by 2008.
PREFACE ix Although the emphasis was on vessel garbage,3 in some respects this problem could not be separated from the problem of marine debris in general, as noted in several sections of this report (such as those relating to ecological effects). Thus, elements of the committee's analysis and recommendations are applicable to the broader problem of marine debris as well as the specific Objective of the study. The committee made no recommendations going beyond Annex V or the International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines for implementation, even when there were compelling arguments for doing so. For example, several committee members argued that vessel operators and crews should halt all littering of the oceans, even that which is permitted by Annex V. Despite the appeal of a total ban,4 the committee adhered to the limits of Annex V, which imposes a total discharge prohibition only in certain sea areas, and the IMO implementation guidelines, which recommend discharging garbage in port reception facilities "whenever practicable." The committee's study encompassed all aspects of the U.S. implementation of Annex V. The committee addressed all vessel operationsâall fleets, all ports and terminals, and all pertinent public and private institutions. It was charged with â¢ examining the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, organizations, fleets, and ports in a national implementation of the convention; â¢ identifying institutional, administrative, or policy changes that could contribute to the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, including proposals needing further research or application; â¢ reviewing the state of practice for marine debris controls, shipboard waste handling, and shoreside waste reception facilities; â¢ suggesting strategies for integrating waste management practices; â¢ identifying technology or science areas that could contribute to the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, including methods needing further research or development; and â¢ developing elements of a strategy to improve the authorities' abilities to compel compliance with MARPOL Annex V. 3 The committee focused on the disposal of vessel garbage regulated under Annex V and the MPPRCA. The study did not address the transportation of material for the specific purpose of dumping it into the ocean, regulated under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532). 4 Such a ban maybe justifiable scientifically on the basis of evidence that garbage discharged legally far from shore can drift into areas (even all the way to the shoreline) where discharge is prohibited. On the other hand, there are practical and scientific reasons for not pursuing a total ban. First, not all vessels are technically capable of holding all garbage on board for disposal ashore. Second, there has been no comprehensive, multimedia study comparing the environmental effects of discharging garbage overboard to those of other disposal options, such as incineration or off-loading at an island port that lacks proper landfills.
PREFACE x No similar strategic analysis has been conducted by any nation signing Annex V or earlier MARPOL annexes. Therefore, the committee's effort may establish a precedent for examining how to incorporate a global environmental treaty into national governmental responsibilities. The present focus on vessel garbage notwithstanding, the committee's overall approach may be applicable to the broader roster of MARPOL annexes, which address prevention of pollution by oil, hazardous substances, and sewage from ships, as well as a future annex that will address air pollution. STUDY METHODS AND REPORT ORGANIZATION Over a two-year period the committee met six times, including four meetings in working ports on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The committee received briefings from representatives of all major domestic fleets, as well as port operators, waste haulers, environmental advocates and scientists studying marine debris, technologists developing garbage disposal methods and equipment, and a variety of state and local government officials working to incorporate Annex V into the duties and responsibilities of their organizations. The meetings were supplemented by individual interviews and site visits at waterfront facilities and waste hauling firms. A brief questionnaire was sent to a variety of port officials, port users, and waste haulers. The committee also conducted international correspondence to keep abreast of other national implementation regimes, especially with regard to port reception facilities and emerging developments in regional Annex V enforcement arrangements. A broad literature search assisted the committee in gathering information from a variety of private and government sources, from the well known to the obscure. As part of the study, the committee reviewed earlier estimates of garbage generated by vessels (National Research Council, 1975; Eastern Research Group, 1988; Cantin et al., 1990) and examined other data of potential use in developing new estimates. While all available data sets are flawed, the committee drew on a variety of sources to develop its own rough estimates of the garbage generated by each U.S. maritime sector. The committee also sought to characterize, to the degree possible, current disposal practices and options for improving garbage management. As part of this effort, the committee commissioned a background paper on the U.S. Navy's garbage disposal practices and proposals (Swanson et al., 1994).5 The report is organized into three general sections: background, analysis, and synthesis. Chapter 1 provides background by summarizing the history and mandates of Annex V and progress in U.S. implementation efforts to date. The 5 Copies of this unpublished background paper may be obtained from the Marine Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.
PREFACE xi analysis begins in Chapter 2, which defines the scope of the problem by outlining what is known about the sources, fates, and effects of vessel garbage. In addition to compiling the findings of others with respect to these topics, the committee conducted original analyses of garbage sources. Chapters 3-8 build the foundation for the design of an Annex V implementation program. Chapter 3 outlines the hazard evolution model employed by the committee. This model is applied to the various maritime sectors in Chapter 4, which identifies opportunities for intervening in the evolution of the hazard (marine debris). The committee found it essential to examine each fleet separately, because their characteristics varied so widely. Chapter 5 examines the interface between vessels and ports, viewing vessel garbage management as a system. Chapter 6 addresses Annex V education and training. Chapter 7 examines several overarching issues, including the need for leadership and problems related to Annex V enforcement. Chapter 8 reviews opportunities for measuring progress in implementation of Annex V. The last two chapters synthesize the findings from the analysis to outline a strategy that, in the committee's judgment, can lead to more complete U.S. compliance with and implementation of the mandates of Annex V. Chapter 9 contains fleet-specific advice, recommending objectives and tactics to be used within each maritime sector. Chapter 10 presents conclusions and recommendations for action by the federal government to improve overall implementation of Annex V in multiple maritime sectors. The volume also contains, in addition to the biographies of the committee members, five other appendixes, which supplement the committee's report. Appendix B contains copies of Annex V and the IMO standards for on-board incinerators. Appendix C is a paper written by a committee member on the international law of the sea. The remaining three appendixes, which were written or commissioned by the committee, summarize background information compiled from multiple sources that may be difficult for readers to gather themselves. Appendix D lists key milestones in U.S. implementation of Annex V. Appendix E, an excerpt from the background paper commissioned by the committee, outlines the characteristics of the eight special areas designated under Annex V. Appendix F provides details on the harm caused by marine debris to supplement the summary of ecological effects at the end of Chapter 2. The report is organized so that readers interested in specific maritime sectors or federal agencies can find relevant sections easily. Each sector is examined individually in chapters 2, 4, and 9. These sections also address related federal activities. Federal officials also will be interested in chapters 5-8 and 10. Recommendations for federal action are organized by agency in the Executive Summary. The recommendations in chapters 9 and 10 represent the committee's consensus concerning the best use of the disparate skills and authorities of government, industry, and community-based individuals and organizations to improve
PREFACE xii management of an activity that, while seemingly mundane, can have far- reaching effectsâdisposal of vessel garbage. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The committee wishes to thank the dozens of individuals who contributed their time and effort to this project, whether in the form of presentations at meetings, correspondence, or telephone calls. Invaluable assistance was provided to both the committee and the Marine Board staff by representatives of federal agencies, private companies in various maritime sectors, citizen and environmental groups, and waste management industries. In particular, the committee wishes to acknowledge its liaisons with the project sponsors: Commander Jeff Beach and Lieutenant Commander J.M. Farley, Marine Environmental Protection Division, U.S. Coast Guard; James Coe and John Clary of the Marine Entanglement Research Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Lawrence J. Koss, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy; Daniel W. Leubecker, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Maritime Administration; Steve Levy, Municipal Solid Waste Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and David Redford, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special thanks also are due to Robert Blumberg, Office of Ocean Affairs, Department of State; Ronald B. Caffey, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; William Eichbaum, World Wildlife Fund and Marine Board liaison to the committee; and John Twiss, executive director, and David Laist, policy and program analyst, of the Marine Mammal Commission. Finally, the chairman wishes to recognize members of the committee, not only for their hard work during meetings and in reviewing drafts of this report but also for their many individual efforts in gathering information and writing sections of the report. REFERENCES Cantin, J., J. Eyraud, and C. Fenton. 1990. Quantitative Estimates of Garbage Generation and Disposal in the U.S. Maritime Sectors Before and After MARPOL Annex V. Pp. 119-181 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), 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. Eastern Research Group (ERG). 1988. Development of Estimates of Garbage Disposal in the Maritime Sectors. Final report prepared for the Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Arlington, Mass.: ERG. December. (ERG is now in Lexington, Mass.)
PREFACE xiii National Research Council (NRC). 1975. Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. Ocean Affairs Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 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.
TERMINOLOGY AND ACRONYMS xv Terminology and Acronyms TERMINOLOGY garbage:* food, domestic, and operational waste (excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, sewage, and drainage water) generated during normal operations and liable to be disposed of continuously. Garbage thus includes solid wastes often identified as ''trash''. ocean(s): all waters where Annex V is in force, including seas, estuaries, coastal waters, and, in the United States (under domestic law), inland waterways. marine en- same as ocean. vironment: port: any landing area (port, marina, pier, dock, or ramp) for vessels. port recep- any receptacle, from trash cans to dumpsters to barges, maintained by or at tion facili- a port to receive garbage generated on vessels. ty:* ship: a large vessel, such as a cargo or passenger cruise ship. special a sea area subject to special Annex V restrictions on garbage discharges. area:* vessel: any water craft or structure, from small boats to ships to oil drilling platforms, that carries humans. zero dis- no garbage is discharged overboard except, under certain conditions, food charge: waste. * Denotes terms for which the meaning is essentially the same as in Annex V.
TERMINOLOGY AND ACRONYMS xvi ACRONYMS APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CMC Center for Marine Conservation COA Certificate of Adequacy DOS Department of State EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDA Food and Drug Administration GOMP Gulf of Mexico Program IMO International Maritime Organization IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission ISWMS Integrated Solid Waste Management System MARAD Maritime Administration MDIO Marine Debris Information Office MERP Marine Entanglement Research Program MMC Marine Mammal Commission MMS Minerals Management Service MPPRCA Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SPA Shore Protection Act USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
CONTENTS xvii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 DIMENSIONS OF THE CHALLENGE AND U.S. 13 PROGRESS International and U.S. Mandates 15 Progress in U.S. Implementation of Annex V 21 The Challenges Ahead 28 References 29 2 SOURCES, FATES, AND EFFECTS OF SHIPBORNE 32 GARBAGE Identifying Vessel Garbage in the Marine Environment 33 Sources of Shipborne Garbage 35 Fates of Shipborne Garbage 48 Environmental and Physical Effects of Marine Debris 52 Summary 56 References 57 3 IMPLEMENTATION 63 Hazard Evolution Model 64 Adapting the Model to Vessel Garbage Management 66 Summary 80 References 81 4 ELEMENTS OF AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 83 Introduction 84 Analysis of Interventions 85 References 136
CONTENTS xviii 5 INTEGRATING VESSEL AND SHORESIDE GARBAGE 140 MANAGEMENT Principles of Integrated Waste Management 141 Shipboard Technologies and Practices 143 Garbage Management in Ports 155 Enhancing the Vessel Garbage Management System 159 Summary 167 References 169 6 EDUCATION AND TRAINING 173 Overview of Opportunities for Education and Training 174 Experience Base Related to Annex V 176 A Model Annex V Education and Training Program 183 The Federal Role in Annex V Education and Training 185 Summary 188 References 189 7 OVERARCHING ISSUES AFFECTING ANNEX V 191 IMPLEMENTATION The Need for Leadership 191 U.S. Enforcement of Annex V 196 Issues Related to Special Areas 203 Summary 208 References 209 8 MEASURING PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF 210 ANNEX V Record Keeping as a Measure of Implementation 211 Environmental Monitoring 214 Summary 220 References 220 9 NATIONAL STRATEGY 222 Identifying and Evaluating Strategies and Tactics 223 Strategy for Each Maritime Sector 225 10 FEDERAL ACTION TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION 240 OF ANNEX V Scientific Monitoring 241 Vessel/Shore Interface 242 On-board Technologies 245 Enforcement 247 Education and Training 249 National Leadership 250
CONTENTS xix APPENDIXES A Committee on Shipborne Wastes Biographical Information 257 B Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 263 C The International Law of the Sea: Implications for Annex V 313 Implementation D Time Line for U.S. Implementation of Annex V 321 E Characteristics of Annex V Special Areas 324 F Ecological Effects of Marine Debris 332 INDEX 343
xx List of Tables and Figures TABLES ES-1 National Strategy for Annex V Implementation: Objectives 4 for Each Maritime Sector 1-1 Fleets Examined 19 2-1 Indicator Items That May Be Used to Identify Sources of 35 Beach Debris in the Gulf of Mexico 2-2 Annual Garbage Generation by U.S. Maritime Sectors 37 2-3 Characterization of Vessel Garbage Generated in U.S. Mar- 38 itime Sectors 2-4 Estimated Number of Fishing Industry Vessels Active Dur- 42 ing 1987 (by Region Fished) 2-5 Plastic Contributions to Beach Debris (% of Total Items 49 Found) 3-1 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 70 MARPOL Annex V Provisions 4-1 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 88 Recreational Boats and Their Marinas and Waterfront Facilities 4-2 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 96 Commercial Fisheries and Their Fleet Ports
xxi 4-3 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 102 Cargo Ships and Their Itinerary Ports 4-4 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 108 Passenger Day Boats, Ferries, and Waterfront Facilities 4-5 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 112 Small Public Vessels and Their Home Ports 4-6 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 118 Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Platforms, Rigs, Vessels, and Base Terminals 4-7 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 122 U.S. Navy Combatant Surface Vessels and Their Home Ports 4-8 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 128 Passenger Cruise Ships and Their Itinerary Ports 4-9 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to 134 Research Vessels and Their Ports of Call 5-1 Comparison of Contaminant Levels in Ash from a Munici- 153 pal Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Plant and a Cruise Ship Incinerator 5-2 Providing Port Reception Facilities 158 7-1 Federal Agency Areas of Authority and/or Expertise Related 193 to Annex V Implementation 7-2 Flag State Responses to U.S. Reports of Alleged Annex V 198 Violations by Foreign-Flag Vessels (since December 31, 1988) [B]-1: Summary of At Sea Garbage Disposal Regulations 277 [B]-2: Options for Shipboard Handling and Disposal of Garbage 279 [B]-3: Compaction Options for Shipboard-Generated Garbage 285 [B]-4: Incineration Options for Shipboard-Generated Garbage 287 E-l: General Physical Characteristics of MARPOL Special Areas 330 FIGURES 1-1 Summary of the At-Sea Garbage Discharge Restrictions 17 3-1 The Chain of Technological Hazard Evolution 65 3-2 Intervention Opportunities in Hazard Management 67 5-1 Cruise Ship Waste Management Systems 151 7-1 The Wider Caribbean Special Area 205
xxiii CLEAN SHIPS CLEAN PORTS CLEAN OCEANS