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.
INTEGRATING VESSEL AND SHORESIDE GARBAGE MANAGEMENT 167 vehicles to make funding available to compensate for market hesitation. Such an approach might be warranted as part of Annex V implementation. The second option is for garbage services to be covered by the tariff that, in some ports, is paid by all vessel operators, regardless of whether garbage is deposited. This approach is the simplest option to administer but distributes the costs among parties who do not benefit directly. Moreover, ports are moving away from tariffs. The third option is to impose a standard fee for garbage services actually used. This approach conforms to the pattern for other services, which vessel operators pay for on a fee-for-service basis. It has been suggested that ports should participate in setting or capping garbage-disposal rates. Both the second and third options would require that a port arrange for garbage services for all vessels calling there and assure that the costs of those services were covered in some manner by tariffs, fees, or some other revenue source. Then the question becomes whether private terminals should be subject to the same rules as public terminals. In the absence of a cohesive national port system, the federal government may need to initiate discussions of these issues as part of its effort to assure that adequate port reception facilities are provided. Regardless of which option is pursued, it may be prudent and indeed necessary for port authorities to work cooperatively on a wide scale (either regional or national) to establish a common fee for garbage hauling, independent of the port receiving the ship. Because the crucial parameter is the prevailing cost in the land-based disposal system, there is little basis for neighboring ports to diverge much from those fees. Long-term arrangements might offer an economic benefit; a ship operator who purchased waste-hauling services only occasionally would pay a higher fee than would a customer who negotiated a long-term contract. SUMMARY The preceding analysis of vessel garbage management as a system identifies numerous opportunities for improving the system and thereby the implementation of Annex V. On the vessel side of the system, the government could provide three general types of assistance designed to foster Annex V compliance: â¢ Technology Assistance. A range of on-board garbage handling and treatment technologies is available. In some cases, commercial equipment can be purchased, but available technology may be inappropriate, due to its size or operating features. Some vessel operators may require assistance in locating available equipment or adapting or developing improved or more appropriate units. The federal government could facilitate technology transfer, so that all maritime sectors could make maximum use of information about Navy and cruise industry R&D, as well as equipment designed for land use. The government also could establish a program to develop, test, and evaluate shipboard technologies
INTEGRATING VESSEL AND SHORESIDE GARBAGE MANAGEMENT 168 for wide application. The Maritime Administration could lead the effort, or the Navy R&D program could be expanded to develop on-board garbage handling and treatment technologies for commercial use. â¢ Guidance on Key Issues. Federal agencies could take steps to resolve issues that may be impeding safe garbage storage and expanded use of garbage treatment equipment. Guidelines on shipboard sanitation could be developed and technical assistance provided for all fleets to ensure that on- board storage procedures were safe. To support expanded use of trash compactors, APHIS could develop standards based on compacted waste. And, to foster proper use of incinerators, the EPA could adopt the IMO standards for shipboard incinerators. â¢ Financial Assistance. Some fleets, notably the fisheries sector, may require financial assistance in order to achieve compliance. The NMFS could offer financial assistance for research on and installation of garbage handling and treatment technology to fisheries fleets. To expand access to this assistance, the NMFS could consider waiving the $100,000 minimum expenditure requirement for the Capital Construction Fund Program. Turning to the port side of the system, there is little evidence of strategic planning to support the provision and use of adequate garbage reception facilities. Steps could be taken in five areas to improve the vessel-port interface: â¢ Require Cargo and Cruise Ships to Off-Load Garbage at U.S. Port Calls. Such a requirement would help ensure that large commercial ships use port reception facilities and thereby increase government control over the vessel garbage management system. â¢ Strengthen the Recycling Infrastructure. The vessel garbage management system could benefit from an improved infrastructure for recycling, to take advantage of this now-standard mechanism for reducing waste streams. â¢ Transfer Oversight of Port Reception Facilities to EPA and the States. Responsibility for port reception facilities could be assumed by waste management experts within EPA and state governments; EPA could set technical standards, and states could assure that the standards were met as part of the waste management planning process under RCRA. State governments also could review or require port reception facilities as a condition of granting permits to ports. â¢ Improve Integration of the Annex V and APHIS Regimes. The federal government could make it easier for vessel operators to comply with all applicable Annex V and APHIS regulations. Such an effort would involve educating mariners about both Annex V and quarantine requirements, ensuring that any off-loading requirements were parallel, and working toward a system that would require vessel operators to make Only one arrangement for handling of both types of garbage in a port. â¢ Address Payment Issues. Attention to the question of who should pay for