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.
NATIONAL STRATEGY 234 activities assessed, based on reports of marine debris in the area. Shore bases, which are required to have reception facilities but not necessarily COAs, should be required by the states that license them to provide adequate reception facilities. Terminals could be required to obtain COAs, even if the boats they serve are smaller than the minimum size qualifying as a port for the program. Objective: Assure that seagoing and management personnel are provided with appropriate Annex V information, education, and training Annex V educational efforts should target all segments of the offshore industry. Management personnel should be given information covering the full spectrum of requirements for the handling of solid waste. The industry's voluntary ban on use of foamed plastic should be held up as an example of how to minimize or eliminate garbage. Supply boat operators in particular need information about Annex V. In addition, MMS officials engaged in routine overflights of offshore operations could be informed about Annex V so they can report violations as well as concentrations of marine debris on the water or shorelines. Planning for educational programs should recognize that the offshore industry hires a continuous flow of new workers unfamiliar with Annex V, and that the companies involved have fewer resources and narrower expertise than in the past. The MMS should focus its limited resources on encouraging marginal independent operators to comply with Annex V, the approach used to minimize oil spills. Specific messages need to be emphasized. Like other seafarers, offshore operators should be encouraged to reduce the use of packaging. They also should be urged to transport operational wastes to shore in a timely fashion, to minimize losses at sea. Overall, new attitudes concerning environmental protection should be encouraged, so that industry personnel voluntarily refrain from tossing anything overboard. Navy Surface Combatant Vessels and Their Home Ports Objective: Develop plans for full Annex V compliance, including capability to achieve zero discharge in special areas, making the best use of existing technologies and strategies While it must contend with special burdens in developing a plan for full Annex V compliance, the Navy also has unique opportunities due to the large sums of money that have been appropriated for research and development and its effective command and control organization that can implement successful strategies on a fleetwide basis. It is important to make the most of these assets. To that end, the Navy should reconsider its decisions to abandon on-board garbage treatment technologiesâspecifically compactors and incineratorsâ employed successfully on large ships in other fleets (and, in fact, on some Navy
NATIONAL STRATEGY 235 OBJECTIVES FOR NAVY SURFACE COMBATANT VESSELS â¢ Develop plans for full Annex V compliance, including capability to achieve zero discharge in special areas, making the best use of existing technologies and strategies â¢ Develop model Annex V implementation program ships). The Navy already has devoted considerable time and resources to these technologies, and state-of-the-art units are available. Compactors are a basic element of compliance strategies in most other fleets, including Coast Guard ships that remain at sea for months at a time. Incinerators are standard on passenger cruise ships. Designed and used properly according to IMO guidelines, incinerators can eliminate garbage almost entirelyâa significant benefit in that wastes need not be either stored or discharged overboard. The Navy should evaluate the possible use of incinerators that meet or exceed IMO guidelines and make a new decision based on rigorous scientific and engineering tests. The Navy also should seek out and heed other lessons gained from experiences in other maritime sectors. For example, recycling programsâ another standard practice on cruise shipsâcan help reduce waste streams. The Navy's shipboard recycling effort varies by operating unit. Even when on-board garbage treatment technology is installed, metal cans, glass, cardboard, and paper will continued to be discharged into the water as permitted by Annex V. The Navy should encourage its crews to reclaim and recycle ferrous and non- ferrous food and beverage containers for which a market and suitable on-board storage space exist. The Navy also should explore the feasibility of returning glass to shore for recycling or disposal. The Navy also should conduct a critical review of its food service system and provide leadership in source reduction and development of packaging systems that would reduce use of ferrous and glass containers. While space shortages and fire hazard concerns preclude extended on- board storage of cardboard and paper wastes, the Navy has the option of using its pulpers or shredders to reduce the cellulosic material to particles less than 25 millimeters in size. The failure to obtain legislation allowing use of pulpers and shredders in special areas should not preclude the installation of this equipment. The Navy should consider installing pulpers and shredders for use where permitted, to eliminate discharge of floating debris. To prepare for the entry into force of special areas such as the Mediterranean, where operations are extensive, the Navy must develop a capability to achieve zero discharge. Proposals are being solicited from industry for mature technologies suitable for shipboard use, and a separate National Research Council study is examining the Navy's compliance efforts. If no appropriate systems (including compactors and incinerators) can be developed and deployed, then the Navy