I~Y~

. . \~4fn~ ..1

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

Guidelines for the Provision of

Garbage Reception Facilities at

Ports Under MARPOL Annex V

BarbaraWallace

JamesM. Coe

U.S. Department of Commerce

April 1998
U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE

WIILIAM M. DALEY

SECRETARY

National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker

Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine

Fisheries Service

Rolland A. Schmitten

Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries

The NOAA Technical Report NMFS

(ISSN 0892-8908) series is published by

the Scientific Publications Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA,

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA

98115-0070.

The Secretary of Commerce has determined that tlle publication of this series is necessary in the transaction of the

public business required by law of tllis

Department. Use offunds for printing of

this series has been approved by tile Director of the Office of Management and

Budget.

NOAA

Technical

Reports NMFS

Technical Reports of the Fishery Bulletin

Scientific Editor

Dr.John B. Pearce

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1097

Editorial Conunittee

Dr. Andrew E. Dizon National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Linda L.Jones National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Richard D. Methot National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. Theodore W. Pietsch University of Washington

Dr.Joseph E. Powers National Marine Fisheries Service

Dr. TiIn D. SIDith National Marine Fisheries Service

Managing Editor

Shelley E. Arenas

Scientific Publications Office

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

Seattle, Washington 98115-0070

The NOM Technical Report NMFS series of the Fishery Bulletin carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, flora

and fauna studies, and data intensive reports on investigations in fishery science,

engineering, and economics. The series was established in 1983 to replace two

subcategories of the Technical Report series: "Special Scientific Report-Fisheries" and "Circular." Copies of the NOM Technical Report NMFS are available free

in limited numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also

available in exchange for other scientific and technical publications in the marine

sCiences.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

A Technical Report of the Fishery Bulletin

Guidelines for the Provision of

Garbage Reception Facilities at

Ports Under MARPOL Annex V

Barbara Wallace

Kearney/ Centaur Division

A. T. Kearney, Inc.

Alexandria, Virginia 22313

James M. Coe

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

7600 Sand Point Way N.£.

Seattle, Washington 98115-0070

April 1998

u.s. Department of Commerce

Seattle, Washington
Suggested reference

Wallace, Barbara, and James M. Coe. 1998. Guidelines for the provision

of garbage reception facilities at ports under MARPOL Annex V. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 136,47 p.

Purchasing additional copies

Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy

or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-553-NTIS;

http://www.ntis.gov.

Copyright law

Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been

copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source IS

appreciated.

Proprietary products

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve,

recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material

mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or

to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales

promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS approves,

recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary

material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an intent to

cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or

purchased because ofthis NMFS publication.
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background

Cooperation Between Vessel, Port, and Disposal Facility

Administration

Issues and Options

Definition of Terms

CHAPTER 2. SOLID-WASTE MANAGEMENT

Assessment of an Existing System

Administration

Waste-stream Characterization

Waste-collection Arrangements

Improving an Existing System

Minor Adjustments

Taking a New Approach

Notification of Personnel and Users

Periodic Re-evaluation

CHAPTER 3. RECYCLING AS PART OF A GARBAGE RECEPTION FACILIlY

Introduction

Benefits to Ports

Issues for a Port-based Recycling System

Support From Port Management

Cooperation With Local Government and Business

Personnel

Identification of Recyclable Materials

Equipment

Labor

Public Relations and Education

Planning and Implementation

Administration

Regulations and Policy

Physical and Operating Constraints

Marketing Recyclable Materials

Waste-stream Characterization

Development of Program Criteria

Identification of Program Alternatives

Evaluation of Alternatives and Selection of a Program

Publicity and Education

Program Implementation

Program Maintenance

CHAPTER 4. COSTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

Introduction

Expenses and Revenues

Recovery of Waste Management Costs

iii

v

I

2

2

2

2

9

9

9

13

17

17

17

17

18

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

22

23

23

23

24

27

28

31

31

33

34

35

35

35
CHAPTER 5. ENCOURAGING COMPLIANCE WITH ANNEX V

Incentives 37

Education 37

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 39

LITERATURE CITED AND SELECTED REFERENCES 41

APPENDIX l-MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage From Ships 45

APPENDIX 2-Form for Reporting Alleged Inadequacy of Port Reception Facilities for Garbage 47

iv
Abstract

This report offers guidelines for the provision of adequate port reception facilities for vessel-generated garbage under the requirements of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

From Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78), Regulations for

the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships.

MARPOL Annex V prohibits at-sea disposal of plastic

materials from vessels, and specifies the distance from

shore at which other materials may be dumped. Annex

V also requires the provision of port reception facilities

Manuscript accepted 14 November 1994.

v

for garbage, but it does not specify these facilities or

how they are to be provided. Since the at-sea dumping

restrictions apply to all vessels, the reception facility

requirement applies to all ports, terminals, and marinas that serve vessels. These guidelines were prepared

to assist port owners and operators in meeting their

obligation to provide adequate reception facilities for

garbage. The report synthesizes available information

and draws upon experience from the first years ofimplementation of MARPOL Annex V.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background

This document offers guidelines for ports required to

provide reception facilities for vessel-generated garbage

by Annex V of the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 (MARPOL

73/78), Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by

Garbage from Ships (Appendix 1). MARPOL Annex V

is an international treaty designed to address on a global scale the problem of at-sea disposal of vessel-generated garbage.

In the United States, MARPOL Annex V is implemented by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and

Control Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-220), which amends the

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Regulations on

reception facilities for garbage generated by the United

States Coast Guard (USCG) are included in 33 CFR

158; those for vessels carrying garbage are included in

33 CFR 151. Section 158.133(c) of these regulations

requires that "all ports and terminals under the jurisdiction ofthe United States, including commercial fishing facilities, mineral and oil shorebases, and recreational boating facilities, have a reception facility" that

meets the following criteria for adequacy established in

Section 158.410(a):

(1) Is capable after August 28, 1989 of receiving

APHIS [United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] regulated garbage at a port or terminal no later than 24

hours after notice ... unless it only receives ships

that-

(i) operate exclusively within the navigable waters of the United States;

(ii) operate exclusively between ports or terminals in the continental United States; or

(iii) operate exclusively between continental

United States ports or terminals and Canadian

ports or terminals.

(2) Is capable of receiving medical wastes or hazardous wastes defined in 40 CFR 261.3, unless the

port or terminal operator can provide to the master, operator, or person in charge of a ship a list of

persons authorized by federal, state, or local law or

regulation to transport and treat such wastes;

(3) Is arranged so that it does not interfere with

port or terminal operations;

(4) Is conveniently located so that mariners unfamiliar with the port or terminal can find it easily

and so that its use will not be discouraged;

(5) Is situated so that garbage from ships which has

been placed in it cannot readily enter the water; and

(6) Holds each federal, state, and local permit or

license required by environmental and public health

laws and regulations concerning garbage handling.

To certify that a port or terminal meets the requirements for garbage reception facilities, the USCG issues

a Certificate of Adequacy (COA), which is required if a

port or terminal receives oceangoing tankers or vessels

of 400 gross tons or more, or fishing vessels that offload

more than 500,000 pounds of commercial fishing product during a calendar year.

On a COA application, the port or terminal selfcertifies that garbage received from foreign ports can

be handled within 24 hours of notification of the need

for the service, and that all garbage that the master of

the vessel wishes to discharge can be received (except

for large quantities of spoiled or damaged cargo or

garbage from ships not having commercial transactions

with the port or terminal).

If a port or terminal that comes under the COA requirement lacks adequate reception facilities, the USCG

may bar vessels from entering that port or terminal.

Ports and terminals not required to file a COA with

the USCG must still meet requirements for garbage

reception facilities. Vessels may be denied entry to ports

and terminals with inadequate reception facilities,

whether or not they are required to have a COA. This

includes recreational boating facilities.

These guidelines were prepared to assist United States

port owners and operators in meeting their obligation

to provide adequate port reception facilities, and to

ensure that such facilities are available to vessels. The

report synthesizes available information and draws upon

experience from the first years of implementation of

MARPOL Annex V. The text of MARPOL Annex V is

included as Appendix 1. Appendix 2 presents the form
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

that accompanies MARPOL Annex V for reporting alleged inadequacy of port reception facilities for garbage.

Cooperation Between Vessel,

Port, and Disposal Facility _

There are three components involved in the implementation of Annex V: the vessel, the port reception

facility, and the ultimate disposal facility. However, only

the vessel and the port reception facility are explicitly

mentioned in the treaty. Annex V prohibits at-sea disposal of plastic materials from vessels and specifies the

distance from shore at which other materials may be

dumped. Figure 1 summarizes the garbage discharge

restrictions for vessels. Annex V also requires the provision of port reception facilities for garbage. It does not,

however, specifY what these facilities should be or how

they are to be provided, but merely states thatservice must

be provided "... without causing undue delay to ships,

and according to the needs of the ships using them."

Since the at-sea dumping restrictions apply to all vessels,

the reception facility requirement applies to the entire

range of ports, terminals, and marinas which serve vessels.

The vessel, port reception facility, and ultimate disposal facility each have personnel who must work together to achieve compliance: the owner, the person in

charge on site, and the waste handler (Fig. 2). In some

cases, these roles may be combined in the same person.

Successful implementation of MARPOL Annex V requires linkages between the three components: between

the vessel and the port reception facility, and between

the port reception and ultimate disposal facilities (Fig.

3). When these links do not function, implementation

of Annex V will be incomplete.

Arrangements for shoreside collection and disposal

of vessel-generated waste are generally made by either

vessels or by ports (Fig. 3). Where arrangements are

made by the port, collection and disposal services are

typically provided by the port itself, the local government or municipality, or a commercial waste management company hired for that purpose. Arrangements

made by a vessel are typically set up by the ship's agent

with commercial waste management companies, with

or without assistance from the port.

Administration _

No matter which approach a port chooses, it is responsible to ensure the availability of port reception facilities that meet the needs of vessels without causing undue delay. Administrative arrangements will be necessary to plan, implement, and operate a solid-waste management system for vessel-generated garbage. The first

step is for the port operators to decide on the appropriate organizational structure and to assign responsibility. The same person may be responsible for planning,

implementing, and operating the waste management

system, or the responsibility for those tasks may belong

to different persons.

In general, port operators may either hire or assign

an individual or group to oversee the port's garbage

management facilities, or they may hire an outside

contractor. If an outside contractor is used, someone at

the port should be assigned to oversee and review the

work. This document contains information useful to

port operators and managers no matter which approach

they use to provide reception facilities for garbage.

Issues and Options

Since MARPOL Annex V applies to all vessels, it encompasses a broad range ofwastes. Figure 4 illustrates options

for the shoreside collection, treatment, storage, and transport of the many types of vessel-generated garbage. As

illustrated in Figure 4, foreign-generated wastes quarantined by APHIS require specific collection, treatment,

storage, and transportation methods (see Chapter 2).

Some ports may provide all the options shown; others may

need to provide only one or two ifthose options meet the

needs of the vessels using the port and are sufficient for

the amounts of garbage coming from those vessels,

Figure 4 also indicates some of the issues that must

be addressed: waste-stream characterization, handling

requirements for special garbage, equipment, space

and site requirements, recycling, cost, and efforts to

encourage compliance. The remainder of this document focuses on these issues.

Def'mition of Tenns

The following terms are employed in these guidelines:

Vessel

The word "vessel" (not ship as is used in MARPOL

Annex V) is used to emphasize that all ships, boats,

submarines, fixed and floating platforms, and other watercraft are included in the requirements ofAnnex V.

Garbage

To be consistent with the language of MARPOL Annex

V (Appendix 1), these guidelines use the word "gar-
n

::r

..

.:,::,::; '::::i.~!:I:'IiI,:::I:

/F . • Plastic

.;:::~~r:··

l~ .;::::::::::.:..

::::~ilii\lJ~::':::'::,

ILLEGAL TO DUMP

• Plastic • Dunnage

~dil~

ILLEGAL TO DUMP

If not ground to

less than 1in.

• Paper • Crockery

• Rags • Dunnage

• Glass • Food

• Metal

:::::::ii:1i~,~::t

i ILLEGAL TO DUMP

• Plastic

~~

• Plastic • Metal

• Paper • Crockery

• Rags • Dunnage

• Glass • Food

...,...

Figure 1

Summary of garbage dumping restrictions under MARPOL Annex V. More restrictive rules apply within special areas. The Wider Caribbean region, which

includes the Gulf of Mexico, has been designated a special area, but discharge restrictions cannot be enforced there until adequate port reception facilities for

garbage have been established in the region.

...

=

o

Q.

=n

... o'

=

c..:>
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

• Owner

• Captain

• Waste Handler

• Ship's Agent

• Port Authority/Owner

• On-Site Management

• Waste HandlerlHauler

• Public Administration/Owner

• On-Site Management

• Waste Handler

Figure 2

The various personnel who must work together to achieve compliance with Annex V regulations. Within each of the

three components-the vessel, port, and ultimate disposal facility-personnel must cooperate to make their component

a functioning link in Annex V implementation.

bage." However, for the American reader the words

"trash" or "refuse" would be equally appropriate. Annex V Regulation 1 (1) defines "garbage" as "all kinds

ofvictual, domestic and operational waste excluding fresh

fish or parts thereof, generated during the normal operation ofthe vessel and liable to be disposed of continuously

or periodically except those substances which are defined

or listed in the Annexes to the present Convention."

Regulations 3, 4, and 5 (subject to the exceptions in

Regulation 6) prohibit the at-sea disposal of plastics

anywhere and restrict the at-sea disposal of other types

of vessel-generated garbage including dunnage, lining,

and packing materials that will float; food waste; paper;

rags; glass; metal; bottles; crockery; and similar material.

Fish wastes generated during fishing or fish processing at

sea are not classified as garbage under Annex V.

Plastics

According to Annex V Regulations 3 and 5, the term

"plastics" includes, but is not limited to, synthetic ropes,

synthetic fishing nets, and plastic bags. For the purpose

of further guidance on the meaning of the term, "plastics" is defined by United States Coast Guard regulation

33 CFR 151.05 as

"any garbage that is solid material, that contains

as an essential ingredient one or more synthetic

organic high polymers, and that is formed or

shaped either during manufacture ofthe polymer

or polymers or during the fabrication into a finished product by heat or pressure or both.

Note: Plastics possess material properties ranging from hard and brittle to soft and elastic. Plastics are used for a variety of marine applications

including, but not limited to: food wrappings, products for personal hygiene, packaging (vaporproof

barriers, bottles, containers, and liners), ship construction (fiberglass and laminated structures, siding, piping insulation, flooring, carpets, fabrics, adhesives, and electrical and electronic components),

disposable eating utensils and cups (including styrene products), bags, sheeting, floats, synthetic fishing nets, monofilamentfishing line, strapping bands,

hardhats, and synthetic ropes and line."
_________________________________ Chapter 1: Introduction 5

Vessel

Port Reception Facilities

Port...M~deArrangemeDts

Ultimate Disposal

Vessel-Made Arrangements,

Figure 3

The three components necessary to providing port reception facilities for garbage: the vessel, port, and ultimate disposal

facility. Either the port or the vessels may be responsible for arranging for colle·ction of wastes at the port.

Port

The word "port" is used in this document to denote a

terminal, commercial fishing facility, marina, or any

other type of dock, pier, berth, or boatyard that is required to provide port reception facilities for garbage.
Quarantined Transport Sealed ..... yes ..... Sterilization

Ship

yes I .... Wastes

Dunnage,

(Garbage,

Etc.) ..... Containers

Quarantine

to K

Arrives at ..... International Treatment and

Port lII"'" Arrival? no Disposal Incineration

Terminal

no

., , Bins, .... Disposal,

Stockpile Reuse I ....

Port Reception

Facility(ies) Accepts

Ship's Garbage ...... Gears, Traps Forklift, Disposal,

Portable Crane, .... Recycle, .... ., ,. .I Bins, Dumpster Reuse

Nets,

Ship Wastes yes Dunnage

Separated? RecYClables. Marked .... Local

Receptacles .... Recycle

no Optional Optional

+ Cargo

Residues

Dockside "- Precautions, .... Consignee

Compactor Garbage Special .... or Local

Equipment Disposal

., ,.

.... Ship's Garbage

III"" Hauled to

Shoreside Disposal

Figure 4

Issues and options for port handling and disposal of garbage generated by vessels.

z

o-l

l")

::r

r;.=

e..

:=

'tl

o

::1

Z

=::

"!j

...
____________________________________ Chapter 1: Introduction 7

Special Area

The term "special area" refers to the provisions ofRegulation 5 of MARPOL Annex V. A special area is an area

where, because of oceanographic or ecological conditions or the characteristics of vessel traffic, stricter atsea disposal regulations are in place. In the United

States, the GulfofMexico is designated a special area as

part of the Wider Caribbean Special Area. However,

until adequate port reception facilities are in place in

the region and proper notification has been made to

the International Maritime Organization, the body

which oversees the MARPOL Convention, the more

restrictive disposal requirements are not in effect. The

Wider Caribbean Special Area was so designated after

the passage of MARPOL Annex V and therefore is not

listed in Regulation 5 of MARPOL Annex V (see

Appendix 1).

Chapter 2

Solid-waste Management

Solid-waste management is an integrated series of activities involving collection, treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal. Port operators should first assess their existing solid-waste management system. Unless the port is being newly constructed, there is some

sort ofwaste management system in place, but it mayor

may not be systematically designed and documented.

Only after existing conditions are evaluated should

changes be made. This chapter outlines one approach

to assessing a solid-waste management system and determining a strategy for improving it if necessary (Fig. 5).

Assessment of an Existing System

Administration

Someone must be placed in charge of assessing existing

waste management practices. This person may be assigned or hired specifically to conduct the assessment,

or may be the person in charge of assuring the availability of adequate port reception facilities. Typically, the

port operator either assigns a staff person or hires an

outside contractor.

It is useful for port management and port users to

exchange information on needs and options in planning and promoting the garbage facility. Formation of

an advisory panel composed of leaders from the port,

port user groups, and waste handlers has proven useful

in some cases. Visible support from port management

is critical to assessing and improving waste management operations.

A written plan outlining the existing waste management system and related policies may be appropriate

for some ports. Such a plan should specify the locations

and types of storage and removal equipment throughout the port or harbor; the system for monitoring what

types and quantities ofgarbage are received and handled

by the port; arrangements for special types of garbage

such as large bulky items, recyclable materials, and

garbage which includes or has been in contact with

foreign food items; and provisions to cover equipment

and handling costs.

In order to identify and define waste system needs,

port characteristics, vessel requirements, and port requirements must be considered (Fig. 5). An understanding of these factors helps ensure coordination

between the port and the vessels using it.

Waste-stream Characterization

Waste-stream characterization is conducted to develop

an understanding of waste composition and quantity.

Determination of the capacity needed by a reception

facility should be based on the need of each type of

vessel and on the number of different types of vessels

using the port. This calculation should take into account the types and quantities of garbage discharged by

vessels at sea in accordance with the provisions ofRegulations 3, 4, and 5 of Annex V.

Waste composition and quantity, as well as timing of

delivery, are key considerations in planning for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. These

characteristics of the waste stream determine both the

capacity and the types of collection systems needed,

particularly if there are wastes requiring special handling such as foreign garbage, medical waste, cargo

residue, and large, bulky items such as fishing gear,

pallets, etc.

Types of Waste-Table 1 lists some types of waste received by ports, organized under two major headings:

domestic waste and operational waste. These examples

illustrate the fact that waste may be received from all

sorts of vessels and all types of activities.

Domestic waste includes all types of food waste and

waste generated in living spaces on board a vessel. Food

waste comprises any spoiled or unspoiled victual substances such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products, poultry, meat products, food scraps, and food particles, and

any other material contaminated by such wastes that is

generated on a vessel, principally in the galley and

dining areas.

Operational waste includes cargo-associated waste,

maintenance waste, and cargo residue defined as garbage. Cargo-associated waste is material which has become waste as a result of use on board a vessel for cargo

stowage, handling, and protection. It includes, but is

not limited to, dunnage, shoring, pallets, lining and

packing material, wrappings, plywood, paper, cardboard,

wire, and steel strapping. Maintenance waste is material

9
10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

i. · No. and type of vessels and

trends

• Cargo types and trends

• Operating routes of vessels

• No. of seafarers

. • Types of wastes

..••..•••. • Layout and access to docks

and berths

........ Existing equipment

• Labor availability

• Add more receptacles

• Change size of receptacles

• Use compactors

• Increase frequency of refuse pickup

• Divert recyclable materials

• Placement

• Lighting

• Signs

• Visibility

• Ease of access

• Designate collection areas

• Add windscreens, lids, enclosures

• Add/change lighting

• Add/change signs

• Increase visibility/access

Figure 5

Steps in assessment of an existing solid-waste management system and design of an improved system

(adapted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
collected by the engine and deck departments while

maintaining and operating the vessel, such as soot,

machinery deposits, scraped paint, deck sweepings, wiping waste, and rags. Cargo residues are treated as "garbage" under Annex V except when they are covered

under other Annexes to the Convention.

Within these two categories of waste, there may be

waste which cannot be treated as ordinary garbage and

has special handing requirements. Many ports will, therefore, require some level of waste-stream separation to

maintain quarantine and hygiene, and to control the

transfer of wastes to their ultimate disposal through

incineration or in landfills. Separate collection systems

will be required for special refuse such as foreign food

waste, medical waste, cargo residues, recyclables, and

fishing gear or other large bulky items. The need for

separation stems partly from solid-waste regulations and

partly from practical considerations of waste handling.

Special handling procedures and techniques may be

desirable or necessary in ports serving specialized fleets.

Examples of this situation are fishing ports where fishermen need to discard nets and traps; bulk solid-cargo

terminals where loading and unloading activities generate cargo residues; and livestock carriers where animals produce fecal and urine waste during the voyage.

The port operators should inform seafarers and vessel

operators whether vessel-generated garbage must be

separated, whether there are advance notice or other

landing requirements for a vessel to land specific types

of waste at the port, and whether certain types ofwastes

cannot be landed and why.

Foreign Food Waste and Other Quarantined Garbage-In order to prevent the entry into the United

States of a variety of very damaging livestock and plant

pests and diseases, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates food waste of foreign origin. This

includes any garbage which may have come in contact

with such food (wrapping, packaging, utensils, etc.).

The implementation of MARPOL Annex V is likely to

cause an increase in the amount of foreign food-contaminated waste being delivered to U.S. ports because

plastics, including all food-contaminated plastics, can

no longer be discharged at sea.

In the United States, if a port receives vessels from

foreign ports it must have or provide access to reception facilities that meet APHIS regulations (33 CFR

158.410). Vessels are required (33 CFR 151.65) to provide ports with 24-h advance notification that they will

need such services.

APHIS regulations (9 CFR 94) require the use of

leakproof, covered containers for regulated garbage

retained on a vessel while in United States ports. Regulated garbage that is offloaded must be in leakproof

containers and offloading must be conducted under

Chapter 2: Solid-waste Management 11

Table 1

Examples of types of waste received by port reception

facilities for garbage. Adapted from A. T. Kearney

(l991a).

Domestic Waste

Food wastes

Plastic wastes

Other materials

Paper

Metal

Glass, crockery

Operational Wastes

Maintenance wastes

Oily rags

Oily sorbent pads

Machinery maintenance supplies and residues

Soot and machinery deposits

Metal shavings

Broken parts and packaging for spares

Emptied packaging: metal, paper, glass, etc.

Emptied packaging: plastic

Ash and clinkers from coal boilers

Cargo-associated wastes

Dunnage, shoring

Pallets, lining and packing materials: wood and metal

Pallets, lining and packing materials: plastic

Strapping: wire and steel

Strapping: plastic

Hull maintenance supplies and residues

Rust

Broken parts and packaging for spares

Emptied packaging: metal, paper, glass, etc.

Emptied packaging: plastic

Garbage handling supplies and residues

Ash and clinkers from waste incinerators

Emptied packaging: metal, paper, glass, etc.

Emptied packaging: plastic

Cargo residues

Livestock wastes

Fishing gear

Bait refuse

Signal flares

Light bulbs

the supervlSlon of an APHIS officer. The regulated

garbage must be incinerated to ash or heated to an

internal temperature of 212°F for at least 30 minutes

and disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

In arranging for reception facilities for foreign food

waste and other quarantined garbage, port operators

should consider the following:

• increasing amounts ofsuch garbage may be expected

due to Annex V requirements;

• ports can meet their Annex V obligation for APHISregulated garbage by providing vessels with the means

to contact third-party APHIS-approved haulers capable of proper disposal ofsuch waste;
12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

• there may be special requirements (such as custody,

security, and liability) for increased delivery and temporary storage of this garbage;

• transportation must be available from port to APHISapproved treatment and disposal facilities;

• arrangements must be made for vessels to deliver

advance notice of need for garbage inspection; and

• arrangements must be made to track and respond to

increased quantities of quarantined wastes due to

Annex V implementation.

Medical Waste--In the United States, vessels are required (33 CFR 151.65) to provide ports with 24-h

advance notification that they have medical waste to

discharge. Ports can meet their Annex V obligation for

medical waste by providing vessels with the name and

means of contacting third-party haulers capable of receiving and handling such wastes (33 CFR 158.410).

Cargo Residue--Certain cargo residues, other than

those regulated under MARPOL Annexes I and II (oil

and noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, respectively), may not be suitably disposed of at reception

facilities equipped to handle general garbage, because

of safety hazards. Such substances may be regulated

under other Federal legislation and may require special

handling and disposal. The disposal ofsuch cargo residue should be based on the physical, chemical, and

biological properties of the substance and may require

special handling not normally provided by garbage reception facilities. Substances requiring special handling

are not always obvious, for example, there may be pesticide in bulk cargo residue.

Vessel operators should alert port operators when

cargo residues will require special handling, but they

may not always do so. Therefore, port operators should

ask a vessel's crew what substances are included in any

cargo residue to be handled, in order to identifY special

handling and disposal requirements and to protect the

safety ofthe personnel involved with handling the waste.

When in doubt, the most restricted handling practices

should be used. In the United States, vessels are required (33 CFR 151.65) to provide ports with 24-h

advance notification that they have hazardous waste to

discharge. Ports can meet their Annex V obligation for

hazardous waste by providing vessels with the name and

means of contacting third-party haulers capable of receiving and handling such waste (33 CFR 158.410).

Recyclable Materials-Domestic and operational

wastes may contain materials that are commonly recycled, including glass containers, aluminum cans, cardboard, newspaper, plastic containers, nets, wood, cable,

and metal scrap. Ports and their surrounding jurisdictions can divert those materials away from landfills and

incinerators by establishing collection systems for

recyclables as part of the port reception facility. Ports

with collection systems for recyclables should make seafarers aware of these systems and provide information

on preparation of recyclable materials. Chapter 3 discusses port-based collection for recycling and presents

guidelines for planning and implementing such a collection system.

Fishing Gear-Fishing gear brought into port for

disposal may be bulky and difficult to transfer to the

reception facility without the use ofspecial equipment,

and may have a strong, unpleasant odor. Separate reception facilities and equipment may be needed. Experience has shown that when a separate reception facility

for fishing nets is established, with signs posted indicating that discarded nets are available to those who want

them, reuse of the nets can be substantial, reducing

waste disposal costs.

Quantity of Waste--The quantity of garbage delivered

by any individual vessel will depend on what garbage

treatment equipment (i.e., compactors, incinerators,

and comminuters) is employed while underway, as well

as on such factors as the vessel's function and route,

and the number of passengers and crew. The amount

of garbage handled by a port can be evaluated by recording size and emptying rate for all the receptacles in

the port over a selected time period, and adding records

of APHIS and recycled materials disposal. Port and

terminal operators should consider the following when

determining the quantity of garbage received per unit

time:

• how full receptacles are at the time they are emptied;

• variation in rate of receptacle use over time (seasonal, weekend, etc.);

• variation in type of garbage delivered to different

sections of the port or terminal;

• amount ofAPHIS and other specially handled wastes;

• amount of material recycled or re-used;

• changes in protection status of waters surrounding

the port;

• local or regional boater education, awareness, and

enforcement activities;

• level of utilization of port reception facilities for disposal of local (non-vessel) waste.

Ports serving special areas may receive larger quantities of all categories of garbage because ofthe stricter

at-sea disposal requirements and because vessels

should offload garbage prior to departure. The special area requirement to land all cargo-associated

waste, for example, could create extra demand for

quarantine inspection of dunnage and packing materials and for short-term storage because cargo-associated materials are more bulky than domestic or maintenance wastes.
______________________________ Chapter 2: Solid-waste Management 13

Methods-Researchers and planners for port waste

management have used a variety of methods to sample

the stream of waste entering their jurisdiction and to

forecast future waste management needs. Three methods used primarily to characterize municipal solid-waste

streams, but which may be applied to ports, are briefly

described here. They use either an output approach based

on weight or volume, or an input approach. No single

method will be applicable to all ports. Differences in

such factors as climate, culture, and geography make it

necessary for planners to adjust the methods to their

own situation. It should be noted that a waste-stream

characterization study can be expensive, and a formal

study may not be appropriate in all circumstances.

The Weight-based Output Method-The weight-based

output method involves sampling, sorting, and weighing each component of a representative sample of the

solid-waste stream, to determine the proportion of each

in the total waste stream. It is the most direct and

frequently-used method for estimating recoverable resources in the waste stream. Weight is the measurement

employed because that is the measure used by the waste

industry. In its simplest form, the weight-based output

method is relatively accurate and straightforward under average conditions. However, conditions are not

always average. Chapter 3 includes instructions for applying the weight-based method for waste-stream characterization.

The Volume-based Output Method-The volumebased output method may be particularly useful for

determining the need for capacity at a port reception

facility. A pound of paper weighs the same whether it is

neatly baled or crumpled; but the two storage methods

involve differences in volume. In its simplest form, the

volume-based output method employs waste disposal

records to estimate the volume ofgarbage generated by

a type of vessel. For example, the figures for total volume of waste disposed and the number and type of

vessels registered in port during the same time period

can be used to estimate the waste generated per vessel

per day. This approach may be sufficient for ports where

further detail on the components of the waste stream is

not needed. However, for ports needing detailed information on garbage generation by type or category,

additional effort will be required. In this case, the volume-based output method would involve sampling and

sorting a representative sample of garbage by material

composition or category, in order to calculate the proportion of different materials by volume in the total

waste stream.

The Input Method-The second general method of

characterizing waste streams is the input or materialsflow method. In studies of municipal solid waste, this

method is used to analyze the flow of materials from

production, through consumption, to disposal. Solid

waste is estimated before discard, by studying potential

wastes at their origins. This method has been modified

to estimate the amount of waste generated on a vessel

according to the materials brought onto the vessel. Such

estimates have been used to indicate how much waste

was not coming into ports for disposal, and thus what

was most likely dumped at sea before Annex V entered

into force. Vessel supply lists, assuming they are complete, may be useful in identifying what materials have

been brought on board. The number of days at sea

must also be considered. The input method is more useful for researchers interested in the rate of waste generation by vessels than for portsolid-waste management planners interested in understanding the types and amounts

ofwastes to be handled at port reception facilities.

Waste-collection Arrangements

Annex V does not specify particular types of equipment

for handling garbage. Many types of receptacles and

vehicles may be used to collect, treat, store, and transport Annex V wastes. To a large degree, the receptacles

and vehicles used are dependent on the types of wastes

offloaded and the overall approach to waste-handling

used at a particular port.

Receptacles-All ports, regardless of size, must have

some type of receptacle for receiving garbage from

vessels. A variety of containers and dumpsters may be

suitable. Examples of the types of receptacles used in

ports for collecting garbage are shown in Figure 6.

Many refuse disposal companies rent or lease various

sizes of containers compatible with their hauling equipment. Purchase of these compatible containers may

also be an option.

Receptacles must be functional, but need not be

elaborate. There are several factors to consider when

evaluating and selecting receptacles:

Type-The types of receptacles used will depend on

the number of different types of Annex V wastes to be

collected separately. For example, receptacles used for

collecting recyclables should be very different from

those used for non-recyclable garbage, in order to avoid

confusion among users and resulting contamination of

the recycling bins. As previously stated, quarantined

food waste requires separate receptacles which meet

the specifications ofAPHIS regulations (9 CFR 94). For

durability, receptacles constructed of galvanized metal

or other rust-resistant materials are recommended. For

items such as fishing nets, driftwood, and fish boxes,

stockpile areas with pallets or designated areas with

signs are effective.

Capacity-Receptacle capacity should match demand.

Receptacles that are too small require frequent emptying
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

to prevent collected wastes from overflowing, which can

be costly in terms oflabor. Overflowing waste receptacles

are unsightly and can attract flies and vermin. Receptacles

that are too large can also be costly because the port may

Roll-off

Metal Barrel Metal with lid

Mobile/plastic "Supercan"

...... I

Outer container with raised cover

Mobile/stationary dumpster with lid Compacting dumpster

Figure 6

Examples of receptacles used in ports for collecting garbage.
______________________________ Chapter 2: Solid-waste Management 15

be paying for capacity which is not needed. Seasonal

fluctuations in demand for waste disposal also should be

considered when determining receptacle capacity.

Weight-A receptacle's unladen weight and configuration will determine labor, equipment, and vehicle

needs for moving empty receptacles within the port. It

may be necessary to restrict the maximum load of receptacles because of operating limitations of handling

equipment such as forklifts, cranes, and mechanized

tipping equipment, or because of pier and dock load

limitations. Receptacles that are lifted onto vessels must

be compatible with the maximum load of available

cranes, and may require wiresling attachments.

Space Requirements-The need for space should be

considered at the time that equipment options are

assessed since they are interrelated. Minimum requirements for most receptacles are determined by their

length, width, and lid or door clearance. For receptacles with hinged lids, width when the lid is open

should be considered, particularly ifspace is restricted.

The space required depends in part on the number

and types of receptables to be located together and the

types of wastes to be collected at a single site

For mobile receptacles, consideration must be given

to both storage and passage room (e.g., gate and door

widths) as well as to space required during use. Space

for collection vehicles Ilj.ust also be considered. Selection ofreceptacle type thus goes hand in hand with the

selection of receptacle locations and the approach to

waste handling.

Lids-For public health and safety, and for aesthetic

reasons, receptacles should close securely. Tight-fitting

lids, when used properly, control odors and prevent

scavenging animals from getting into waste receptacles.

Lids also help to minimize the opportunity for discarded wastes to be blown onto the ground or into the

water by the wind. Litter around garbage collection

points is unattractive, deters users, and creates additional work for port personnel.

Emptying Requirements-The ease of emptying waste

receptacles is affected by their stability and maneuverability when fully loaded. Compatibility with the collection vehicle also affects the ease of emptying. For small

receptacles which are emptied by hand, heavy-duty disposable liners ease emptying.

Ideally, receptacles and emptying schedules should

be assessed at the same time to make sure they are

complementary. In ports with an existing waste management system, the emptying schedule may need to be

reassessed; in any case, it should be reviewed periodically. Emptying schedules also affect the need for labor

and collection vehicles. More frequent collection reduces health, safety, and nuisance concerns, and necessitates less stOrage space, but may increase cost by using

more vehicles and labor. Adjustments to emptying schedules have been found to improve service and aesthetics

in some ports.

Security-Experience has shown that receptacles for

garbage and recyclables can be targets of vandalism,

misuse, and theft. Receptacle design and durability as

well as siting should be considered when attempting to

minimize these abuses.

Siting

Requirements-Some siting requirements for port

reception facilities are specified in the regulations, and

others follow logically from the requirements. Reception facilities should be sited to ensure that they do not

interfere with port operations (33 CFR 158.410(a) (3) );

that the garbage collected cannot readily enter the

water (33 CFR 158.41O(a) (5»; and thatthey are convenient to seafarers (33 CFR 158.41O(a)(4».

Convenience-Reception facilities for garbage must

be convenient for the seafarers who use them, for personnel who transport garbage within the port, and for

haulers who transport garbage from the port to an

incinerator or landfill. If waste receptacles are located

inconsistently or inappropriately, use and collection

will be hampered. Depending upon the waste-handling

approach used, garbage receptacles may be in place at

all times or may be moved into place as needed to

collect waste and stored elsewhere when not in use.

Distance to waste receptacles in ports is often cited by

seafarers as encouraging or discouraging receptacle

use. Short distances and easy access encourage use;

long distances or other obstacles to access deter. Access

to equipment such as carts, hoists, and forklifts may

also affect convenience. A central collection site is sometimes established for large bulky items such as cardboard, cable, wood, metal, and fishing net.

In general, high-traffic areas are good locations for

garbage receptacles because of the easy access.

Access for Haulers-Trucks and other vehicles used

to move garbage within or out of the port must have

access to garbage receptacles. Road access and road

conditions leading to the port and to all berths within

the port should be considered when locating garbage

receptacles. It may be necessary to improve roads to

increase accessibility and to prevent litter from falling off vehicles. Right of access to the port may need to

be obtained for vehicles used to transport garbage.

Weight limitations on the wharf may indicate use of a

water-based collection system or strengthening of the

wharf.

Lighting-When a designated reception area is employed, i.e., garbage reception facilities are in place at

all times, the area should be well-lit to encourage 24-h

use.

Security-Garbage reception areas must be secure to

prevent abuse or misuse of the facilities and to ensure
16 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

the safety ofseafarers and port personnel using them. A

compound or environmental shelter may be used to

physically and visually shield the containers, discourage

use by unauthorized persons (e.g., local citizens who

are not port users), and prevent garbage from blowing

away.

Visibility-Garbage reception areas must be clearly

marked and easily located. Directions should be posted

within the port. Individual garbage receptacles must be

clearly marked if they are to be used only for specific

types of waste.

Impact on Surrounding Community-The expected

impact of garbage reception facilities on the surrounding community should be considered as part of the

site selection process. For example, light, noise, and

odors may have an adverse effect on residences or

businesses adjacent to the port. Complaints about objectionable aspects of the garbage reception facilities

can be avoided by considering their effect on neighbors before implementation and making adjustments

as necessary.

Federal, State, Local, and Other Applicable LawsGarbage reception facilities must be located and managed to conform to Federal, State, local, and other

applicable laws. Required permits or licenses concerning garbage handling must be obtained (33 CFR

158.41O(a) (6)).

Handling-Typically, handling of Annex V wastes at a

port involves either a land-based or a water-based system. Four examples of approaches are illustrated in

Figure 7. A!; shown, hauling vehicles must be functional, but need not be elaborate. In the simplest approach, waste is simply collected and transported for

final disposal. More involved schemes include collection, separation of recyclable materials, on-site treatment, and/or on-site storage before the wastes are transported for final disposal.

Land-based Handling-In a land-based system, garbage is either collected in a receptacle brought to the

vessel, collected in receptacles at a site designated for

waste collection, or offloaded directly to a hauling vehicle. Depending on the size of the port, stationary

receptacles are placed in one central location or at

multiple sites.

Receptacles brought to a vessel to collect garbage are

mobile and require a storage area when not in use. The

storage area should be close enough to the wharf to

facilitate prompt delivery of receptacles when needed,

but must not interfere with other port operations. The

wharf must be large enough for the receptacle, even on

a temporary basis, without interfering with other port

activities, and must be sturdy enough to hold the vehicles used to transport the receptacles to and from the

vessel.

If trucks or other vehicles are used to collect garbage

offloaded directly from vessels, they require clear and

readily available access to the vessels. Roll on-roll off

vessels allow a garbage collection truck to be driven

directly onto the vessel. For other types of vessels, the

garbage collection vehicle drives as close as possible

to the vessel and the garbage is offioaded onto the vehicle.

This type of collection approach requires a good road

system within the port, and wharves which are sturdy

enough to support the vehicles. If logistics are arranged

well, no parking within the port is needed for vehicles

waiting to collect garbage from vessels. Otherwise, parking for garbage collection vehicles must be provided.

Water-based Handling-In a water-based approach,

garbage is offloaded from vessels directly to a watercraft, typically a barge, self-propelled landing craft, or

harbor tug. The collection watercraft may approach

the vessel or, if the vessel is small enough, it may go to

the watercraft to offload. This system is an effective

alternative when the road system limits access to the

wharf or when the jetties are not sturdy enough to

support land vehicles.

Provisions must be made on the collection watercraft

to prevent garbage from blowing into the water during

transfer to and from the watercraft and during transport. In the United States, transport of municipal and

commercial garbage by vessel, as well as loading and

unloading operations, are covered by the Shore Protection Act. Covered containers, sealed plastic bags, tarpaulins, and nets over the garbage may be used to

prevent garbage from blowing into the water.

Equipment may be required to lift empty waste receptacles onto a vessel and to remove them after they

have been loaded. Lifting equipment may also be necessary when bagged garbage is removed directly from a

vessel. When garbage is collected by a watercraft, it will

be offloaded to land at some point for hauling to an

incinerator or landfill. Some provision must be made

for offloading the garbage either in the port at which

the garbage is collected, at the disposal site, if it is

accessible to the watercraft, or at another port.

On-site treatment and storage--On-site treatment and

temporary storage of garbage are sometimes part of a

port's waste management system. In this case, appropriate space must be set aside for these activities. On-site

treatment sometimes occurs at the collection receptacle, e.g., compacting dumpsters both collect and compact garbage. Alternatively, garbage may be collected

from various points within a port and taken to a central

location for compacting or baling. Temporary storage

areas should be accessible to vehicles used to collect

garbage and to haul it from storage to an incinerator or

landfill. For public health and safety and for aesthetic

reasons, storage areas should be protected from wind

and other weather and from foraging animals.
______________________________ Chapter 2: Solid-waste Management 17

Approach 1

Seafarer on land

Approach 2

Receptacle Waste moved

for disposal

..~.

tiillf,

Seafarer on land Small receptacle Larger receptacle

~~ »

Lb. 4EL;; §jQf:rvr=-- ...

Waste moved

for disposal

Figure 7

Four typical approaches to handling garbage at ports.

Appropriate sites for garbage receptacles include

wharves adjacent to moorages, access points to docks,

fuel stations, and boat launching ramps.

Improving an Existing System

Minor Adjustments

Port capacity for receiving and handling solid waste can

be changed in a number of ways: by adding receptacles,

increasing or decreasing the size of receptacles, compacting wastes, increasing frequency of garbage pick up, and

diverting recyclable materials to a recycling program.

The siting of a garbage reception facility may be changed,

for example by establishing a centralized collection area.

Features such as windscreens or shelters can be added

to receptacles. Access can be improved by adding lighting

or signs, or by increasing the visibility of receptacles.

Taking a New Approach

It may be decided to change the port's fundamental

approach to solid-waste management. This will entail

reassigning responsibility for receipt, handling, treatment, and disposal of garbage (Fig. 5).

Notification of Personnel and Users

Port personnel and users must be made aware of any

changes in the solid-waste management system. Personnel should be informed of any changes prior to their

implementation, and should understand the changes

so that they can answer questions from port users.

Port users must be informed so that they can properly use the reception facilities. Techniques used to

inform port users of changes in the waste management

system have included port newsletters, bill inserts, spe-
18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

Approach 3

Seafarer on land

Approach 4

:0::

Seafarer on vessel

Receptacle

Temporary storage

(optional)

;,tb A-J

Waste moved for disposal

Figure 7 (continued)

Waste moved

for disposal

cial mailings, notices throughout the port, and word of

mouth.

Periodic Re-evaluation

The person in charge of solid-waste management for

the port should conduct a periodic re-evaluation ofthe

waste management system. Adjustments may be needed

to respond to changes in port users, changes in the

state of marine waste handling, problems with operations and equipment, or changing costs. Records of

costs, labor time, volume of garbage handled, and user

compliance before and after changes should be compared to aid in evaluation.
Chapter 3

Recycling as Part of a Garbage Reception Facility

Introduction

This chapter discusses port-based collection systems for

Annex V waste that may be recycled or reused, and

offers a detailed guide to planning and implementing

such a system.

Recycling is the process in which materials otherwise

destined for disposal are collected, reprocessed, or

remanufactured, and then repurchased or reused by

the consumer. Appropriate materials, called recyclables,

retain useful physical or chemical properties after serving their original purpose. Recycling decreases the need

for raw materials by reusing or remanufacturing materials otherwise destined for landfills, dumps, or incinerators, and shifts valuable resources back to manufacturers. Port-based recycling programs include only the

collection and transfer or sale of recyclable materials.

Benefits to Ports _

A well-planned and executed collection system for recycling provides both tangible and intangible benefits to

a port. Recycling reduces waste dumping and the attendant disposal fees, since the port is typically charged

each time a container of refuse is emptied. The more

material that is identified as recyclable and sorted out

of the waste stream, the less waste there is that requires

disposal.

Recycling may also bring earnings from the sale of

recyclable materials to markets or end users, offsetting

waste-disposal costs. These earnings may be earmarked

for special purposes; for example, one port uses recycling earnings for landscaping, and another uses them

to fund parties for port personnel. Recycling makes

good business sense.

Recycling can also improve public relations with both

the larger community and individual port users. A good

recycling program can reduce litter at a port, both in

the water and on shore, making the facility more attractive to users. Concern about the environment is evident

in many communities, many of which have mandatory

recycling programs, and many commercial and industrial facilities now participate. Recycling also gets port

users directly involved in port waste-management issues. A port with effective waste management, including a good recycling program, can be seen as part ofthe

community's overall waste management system.

Issues for a Port-Based Recycling

System _

Insights on planning, implementing, and operating a

successful program can be drawn from existing portbased recycling systems. Most such programs were

started in an effort to offset the rising cost of garbage

disposal. Some of the lessons learned from these programs are outlined here.

Support from Port Management

A recycling program must have complete support from

port management during the planning phase. Without

management support, there will be limited incentive to

follow through with the program.

Cooperation With Local Government and

Businesses

Contact should be made with local officials and companies to establish good working relationships and to

determine whether a port-based recycling program will

interfere or compete with existing programs. Efforts

may include:

• Discussion with local officials about the port's needs

and interests.

• Identification of any existing recycling programs.

• Interaction with any existing programs that provide

residential recycling services, to ensure that the proposed port-based recycling program will not conflict.

• Contact with refuse haulers and commercial recyclers to discuss specifics such as sorting requirements,

signage, equipment, and fees.

• Formation of an advisory committee comprised of

port personnel, port users, local officials and business representatives, and volunteers to gain their in19
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

put and to make sure that the program will be workable for all. The advisory committee can also provide

public relations and education support.

• Obtaining a firm commitment to the port recycling

program from the port management and local officials. It may be better to delay recycling rather than

allow the program to fail due to neglect.

Personnel

An enthusiastic and well-informed staffis essential for a

successful program. The program must be headed by a

committed individual who is knowledgeable about recycling markets and other aspects of recycling programs and who is willing to go out and "work the docks"

to inform port users, port staff, and others about the

necessity and value of the program. At a minimum,

personnel requirements are:

• One individual responsible for the program. A staff

person or reliable volunteer may be assigned to coordinate the planning, implementation, operations, and

ongoing evaluation of the program.

• A designated recycling coordinator who will meet

regularly with port staff to discuss the port's recycling

program, including posing options for improvement,

answering general questions, and obtaining staff commitment and cooperation.

• Monthly or quarterly reports of progress and goals,

including quantities of materials recycled and associated costs and benefits, issued by the recycling coordinator. Staff members, management, and port users

will see the results of their efforts and, hopefully,

develop pride in the program.

Identification of Recyclable Materials

There is a tendency to think in terms of "the recycling

market" as ifthere were only one market for recyclables.

In reality, there are many markets for specific types and

grades of recyclables. The recycling coordinator must

identify which materials will be consistently accepted in

the local recyclables market before the port collection

program is initiated. The recycling coordinator must

also understand the logistics of collection and handling

and exercise the necessary quality control so that portcollected recyclables meet market and industry specifications. It is far better to start slowly, collecting a few

recyclable items consistently, than to confuse participants with a complex and inconsistent program.

The amount and types of recyclable materials collected at a given port vary over time, depending on the

size and type of port, local recycling markets, and time

of year. Flexibility must be designed into the port collection, handling, and delivery systems to accommodate unavoidable fluctuations.

Equipment

At a minimum, a recycling program will have some wellmarked collection area(s) and container(s). Containers will vary in size and type, depending upon the size of

the port, the type ofmaterial being collected, and transportation issues. Other equipment which may be required includes windscreens and shields to improve

aesthetic concerns, carts, hoists, and forklifts. If the

recycling compound and the containers are not properly marked and located, the collection system may not

be used.

Labor

The labor required for a collection system for recycling

will vary depending on the size of the port. Recycling and

waste-handling duties may be only a part of one person's

responsibilities. Volunteers may also provide labor.

Public Relations and Education

Good public relations and education are crucial factors

for a successful port-based recycling program. All port

users must be informed. of the existence, purpose, and

proper use of the recyclables collection system. Education programs should focus on the reasons for and

benefits of recycling, as well as on specific procedures

used in the port. Convenient, highly visible, and clearly

signed reception facilities are essential to raise and

maintain public awareness. A recycling hotline (or even

an answering machine with prerecorded information)

can be used to disseminate up-to-date program information and to receive comments, suggestions, and complaints from port users. Port users may contribute ideas

for improving the facilities, and if their input is used,

they are more likely to participate in the program.

Frequent and positive media attention to the efforts of

the port and port users, the reduction of disposal costs,

and the amount of materials being recycled will increase participation in the program and reduce potential opposition.

Planning and Implemention _

A successful collection system for recyclable materials

must be well-planned and well-executed. Figure 8 is an
_______________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 21

• In-house staff member

• Outside commercial service

• Tie into an existing municipal program

• Other outside groups or services

• National

• State

• Local

• Port layout • Existing equipment capabilities

• Operational/procedural constraints

• Pierside waste collection - Types

- Amount

- Special handling needs

• Port-generated waste collection - Types

- Amount

- Special handling needs

................................................................................................... Jj~v¢.~~I~~it¢~ilf:i~I~¢lt~f~~gl~lyitillti~gl¢¢y~.j;gi~t¢~~itti~¢~ ".. . -.

• Regulations and guidelines

• Waste stream composition factors

• Market value of wastes

• Physical and operating constraints,

and equipment capability

• Publicity and education needs

• Financial constraints

Figure 8

Overview of planning and implementing a collection system for recyclable materials at a port (adapted from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency).

overview of one approach to this process. The process

will be the same for all types of ports, although the

effort required at each step will vary according to circumstances. In some cases, the planner for the collection system (hereafter called the recycling coordinator) may find a formal, structured approach is neces-
22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

sary; in other cases, less structure may be needed. The

approach should be adjusted to the situation.

Administration

Management Support-To be successful, a collection

system for recyclables must have complete support from

top management, including financial decision-makers.

Management must understand the benefits ofrecycling

and how it can fit into the general solid-waste management program. Management must understand and support the following principles:

• A collection system for recyclable materials is only

one of three parts of recycling. The others, manufacturing and consumer purchasing, will not be part of a

port's program.

• Formal or informal program

• Voluntary or mandatory participation

• Commingled versus separation

• Equipment needs

• Equipment siting and signage

• Frequency of pickup

• Transportation from the port

• Confirm that markets still exist just prior to program start

• Get containers and signage in place before program is scheduled to start

• Have a kickoff meeting or celebration

• Regularly evaluate the program for effectiveness

• Communicate the results of the program to port

users and personnel

Figure 8 (continued)

• Keep port users interested

• Be willing to make changes

where necessary (e.g., change

markets, collect additional materials)
___________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 23

• The collection program for recyclables will falter and

eventually fail without management support.

• Time, staff, and, at least initially, financial support

must be established for the program. Someone must

be responsibile for the program.

The Recycling Coordinator-Management can usuallyeither assign responsibility for the program to an in-house

staff member, or hire an outside commercial service.

A port staff person whose job description specifically

includes recycling may be assigned. Recycling and other

waste-management issues may be this person's entire

job, orjust part of it. This person, the recycling coordinator, will be responsible for the entire program, including researching recycling options, planning and

implementing the program, and, usually, conducting

the day-to-day operations, as well as working with port

users to ensure proper waste handling. The coordinator will also be responsible for identifying and correcting problems with the program on an ongoing basis.

Alternatively, a port may contract with a commercial

waste handler to design and operate a program for

recyclables collection. For facilities such as marinas and

commercial fish houses, this may be more cost-effective,

less labor intensive, and more convenient. An experienced commercial recycler can set up a system quickly

using pre-existing equipment and service arrangements.

It may also be possible for a port to expand its existing

waste-disposal contract to include recycling services.

If a commerical waste handler is hired to design and

conduct a recycling program, the port will still need to

assign a staff person to coordinate with the commercial

service and to work with port users to ensure proper

waste handling.

Cooperative Arrangements-Another option may be to

tie into an existing municipal recycling program, and

this may be an inexpensive way to proceed. Or, it may be

possible to make cooperative arrangements with a nearby

municipality to utilize the same recycling markets.

Governments, universities, corporations, non-profit

groups, and development assistance programs are sometimes willing to set up and operate recycling programs.

If port management chooses to join such a program,

the port will still need to work with port users to answer

questions and help to solve problems. The success of

the program will, however, depend on people outside

the control of port management.

Regulations and Policy

One of the first steps for the recycling coordinator in

planning and implementing a port-based collection system for recycling is to develop an understanding of the

regulatory and policy context. Federal, state, and/or

local regulations and policies may affect the operation

of the program. The recycling coordinator who is not

already familiar with these regulations and policies

will need to contact federal, state, and/or local environmental protection agencies, waste management departments, or their equivalent, for assistance in identifying

regulatory and policy requirements for recycling programs. A recycling system at a port will often fit into

the integrated waste management strategy for the local

area.

Once the relevant regulations and policies have been

identified, it may prove useful for the recycling coordinator to talk with those government officials who implement them. Such interviews can clarify the regulations

and policies and afford a better understanding of their

practical workings. It may be useful to summarize the

regulations and policies in tabular form. They must

be considered in developing and evaluating recycling

alternatives.

Physical and Operating Constraints

The recycling coordinator must know the port layout,

what equipment capability is available, and the port's

operations and procedures. The coordinator should

obtain or develop a map of the port, inventory existing

equipment, and develop an understanding of port operations and procedures through observation, interviews, and port documents.

It is important for the recycling coordinator to have

first-hand knowledge of how wastes are handled from

vessels docked for some period of time, from vessels

docking after a voyage, and from the port itself. One

way to do this is to follow or "walk" the journey of the

waste stream. In this way the coordinator will develop

an understanding of collection procedures and will

identify physical and other constraints to implementing a recyclables collection system. Suitable equipment

storage areas that do not interfere with port operations

should be identified or located, and the space available

for the installation of storage, collection, and transfer

areas should be considered.

Marketing Recyclable Materials

The market value of recyclable materials will influence

the design of a recycling program. Other influential

factors include the existence ofsecondary markets, preprocessing requirements, contract terms, and distance

to markets. The recycling coordinator must find a buyer

for each recyclable to be collected.
24 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

Buyers' offering prices for recyclables will depend on

the quality of the materials as well as on expected

transportation costs. Manufacturers that use recyclables

as raw production materials generally pay premium

prices ifstrict quality specifications are met. Scrap merchants and many middlemen often pay nothing for

recyclables but will haul away separated, but otherwise

unprepared, materials. A recycling coordinator who intends to sell recyclables must be aware ofthe manufacturers' requirements and design the program accordingly.

To identify markets for recyclables, the recycling coordinator can contact federal, state, and local environmental

protection or waste management agencies, which often

have information regarding markets for recyclable materials. Alternatively, waste haulers or dealers can be contacted directly. Commercial haulers often buy recyclable

materials or can suggest appropriate end users. Buyers

should be screened for their price policies, material standards, transportation costs, and contract requirements.

The value of recyclable materials often fluctuates,

and the recycling coordinator must make provisions for

disposal of recyclables when markets fail. Often, recyclable materials can be included in the general solidwaste disposal system.

Waste-stream Characterization

The types and amount of wastes and recyclables found

in both vessel- and port-generated waste streams will

have a direct impact on feasible recycling alternatives. To

determine what recyclable materials are offloaded from

vessels and generated at the port, the recycling coordinator should examine the waste stream for those materials.

Three methods for undertaking waste stream characterization are discussed in Chapter 2: the weight-based

output, volume-based output, and input or materials

flow approaches. A description ofthe weight-based output method of characterizing wastes, including equipment needs, precautions, and procedures, is presented

here. Figure 9 outlines procedures for estimating quantities of recyclables by this method.

This discussion treats a waste stream generated by

both vessels and port operations. Vessel-generated waste

includes garbage from all shipping sources (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, fishing, cruise

vessels, and research vessels); port waste includes waste

from offices, shoreside maintenance, and port tourists

and visitors.

Equipment-The equipment required for characterizing the waste stream is modest. It will include:

• Labeled containers for the storage and measurement

of waste samples. These containers should be waterproof both to protect the samples from rain and to

retain any water content of the waste.

• A mechanical or electrical scale with capacity proportional to the waste to be weighed. To ensure accuracy, the scale should be calibrated according to the

manufacturer's specifications or certified by the state

agency responsible for weights and measures.

• Heavy-duty tarpaulins, shovels, rakes, push brooms,

magnets, and a sorting table.

• First aid kit.

• Appropriate personnel safety equipment such as

chemical-resistant gloves, safety glasses, aprons, and

boots.

Precautions-Steps should be taken to protect the personnel who conduct the sampling. These may include

(but may not be restricted to):

• Instruct personnel to avoid sharp objects, such as broken glass and razor blades, that might cause injury.

• Supply personnel with proper protective clothing.

• Instruct personnel not to open red plastic bags with

biohazard labels.

• Instruct personnel to stay clear of dumping operations.

• Instruct personnel in safe sorting practices, for example, to sort by brushing through the sample with a

spreading motion, rather than thrusting hands into

the sample pile.

Procedures-It is important that a sampling plan is

based on a valid statistical analysis of the specific situation at hand, in order to reach valid conclusions. The

sample taken must be representative in every relevant

way of the overall waste stream. It is advisable to seek

the advice of a statistician regarding development of

the sampling plan.

At the conclusion of sampling, it should be possible

to accurately estimate the annual rates at which general

and recyclable waste are generated. The sampling plan

should identify such factors as the size and number of

samples to be examined, the number and location of

waste-collection containers to be sampled, the location

of the wastes within the containers to be sampled, the

categories by which specific waste-stream components

will be identified and quantified, and the work calendar. Seasonal variations such as those which may occur

with the beginning or end of a recreational boating

season or the start of a commercial fishing season should

be taken into account.

It will be necessary to develop a form to be used for

recording and calculating the presence of different components of the waste stream. Figure lOis an example of a

form which can be used or adapted for this purpose.

Sorting and analysis is performed in three general

steps:
___________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 25

I Solid Waste Sample

+

Determine Total Sample Weight

+

Sort Waste Sample

r n r , , ,

Other All other nonPaper Metal Plastic Glass Recyclable recyclable Wastes wastes

I

+ , , • t t

Aluminum Ferrous Non- Clear Brown ferrous Green

+ , t t t +

High Other

& PET* HDPE* Other grade mixed

I I I I I

r r r

"

-1 Determine Weight of All Disaggregated Materials and Wastes --

"

Determine Proportion of Waste Stream for Each Material and Waste

Figure 9

The weight-based output method for estimating quantities ofrecyclable materials in the waste stream. *PET = polyethylene

terephthalate; HDPE = high-density polyethylene.

1. Separation

• Choose a clean, flat, level area with limited wind

exposure for the sorting and weighing operations.

• Position and level the scale.

• Weigh the empty storage containers and mark them

with their void (tare) weights.

• Dump the selected samples onto the prepared

surface.
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

• Separate the refuse into two categories: recyclables

of interest, and all other materials. Recyclables will

be of interest only if they have worthwhile market

value. For example, disposable razors are recyclable

plastic items but do not have the market value of

high-density polyethylene containers. If an insufficient amount of a particular type of recyclable is

available at a port, or the recycling market is restricted to specific items, it may not be profitable

or possible to recycle a particular material. The

feasibility ofmeeting special handling requirements

for recyclable materials must also be considered.

• Within the recyclables category, separate the sample

into groups according to material. Typical recyclable materials include paper, plastics, metals, and

glass. In fishing ports, fishing nets may be included.

Each material group should be sorted into recoverable resource types according to their value. Paper may be separated into glossy, brown, office

stock, corrugated board, newspaper, etc. The material types will depend on the requirements of the

recycling market. For example, if the current market will accept commingled clear, brown, and green

glass, glass waste need not be separated by color.

• Continue sorting until particle sizes of 1.0 centimeter or smaller are left. If refuse cannot be separated into categories, it should be placed in the

other (non-recyclable) waste category.

Recyclables Paper Office paper

Newspaper

Corrugated

cardboard

Plastic High-density

polyethylene

Polyethylene

terephthalate

Other plastic

Glass Clear

Brown

Green

Metals Aluminum cans

Ferrous

Non-ferrous

Other (e.g.,

fishing net)

All other nonrecyclable

wastes

Total 100%

(Box E)

Figure 10

Example of a form which can be used to record the presence of different components of the

waste stream and to calculate their percent frequency.
___________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 27

2. Weighing the Samples

• Each separate category of waste and recyclables

must be weighed and recorded. If the form shown

in Figure 10 is used, the net weight of each category (column C) is determined by subtracting

the weight of the empty container (column B)

from the weight of the container with the waste

(column A).

• The total weight ofthe waste sample is determined

by adding the weights of all categories (column

C). Enter this weight in Box E of the form.

• Divide each entry in column C by the total in Box

E. This will yield a percentage by weight of each type

ofwaste, which should be entered in column D.

3. Calculation ofWaste Generation Rate

The rate at which waste is generated, or generation

rate, is measured in pounds per person per day.

Converting data to this sort of standard measurement unit is called normalization. In the case of

waste generated on board a vessel, generation rate is

calculated by adjusting for the number of seafarers,

the number ofdays waste was generated, and the size

of the sample, using the following equation:

R= win

s·t

where R generation rate per seafarer per day,

w weight of the sample,

n number ofseafarers,

period ofwaste generation (in days), and

s sample scope (size of waste sample as a

proportion of all waste generated during a

period)

Table 2 is an example of this process of normalization for samples ofrecyclable materials. The same steps

can be used to determine generation rates ofwaste and

recyclables from port operations, in terms of pounds

per personnel (or employee) per day.

Generation rates from municipal solid-waste studies

can be used to test your results for reasonableness and

to identify ways in which the port differs from other

waste generators. Figure 11 shows percentages of materials by weight in the solid waste stream for all municipalities in the United States.

Based on an evaluation of type, amount, and special

handling requirements ofrecyclable materials in vesselgenerated garbage offloaded in port and in port-generated garbage, the recycling coordinator must select

which, if any, recyclable materials are appropriate for

collection at the port. If market arrangements do not

exist, or necessary storage or processing cannot be accommodated, a material should not be designated for

collection.

Development of Program Criteria

Mter identifying the types of material which can be

recycled through the port, the recycling coordinator

will develop criteria for evaluating recycling alternatives. The criteria should be organized according to

Table 2

Examples of calculating rate of waste generation for different waste materials generated by Vessell in port for 3 days, and

by Vessel 2 at sea for 8 days.

Vessel

1 1 2 2

Variable HDPE' PET2 High-grade paper Mixed paper

W Weight of total waste generated (kg) 7 4.75 127 326

n No. ofseafarers 25 25 223 223

w Weight/seafarer (kg) 2=0.28 0.19 0.57 1.46 n 25

Period of waste generation (days) 3 3 8 8

Sample size (% of all waste) 100% 100% 23% 23%

(5' t) Normalized period of generation (days) 3.00 3.00 1.84 1.84

R= win Rate of waste generation (kg/seafarer/day) .28 =0.09 0.06 0.31 0.79

(5' t) 3.0

, HDPE = High-density polyethylene.

2 PET = Polyethylene terephthalate.
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

Glass

7%

Plastics

8%

Rubber, leather,

textiles, wood

8%

Yard wastes

18%

Paper and

paperboard

40%

Misc.

inorganic

wastes

3%

flow is expected, then alternatives may include substantial investment in infrastructure or contracting for infrastructure, to take advantage of economies ofscale. If

volumes are low or intermittent, then large capital expenditures and a formal program will not be feasible,

but an informal program may serve well.

Market Value of Wastes-If the collection system is

large enough, a financial analysis of projected revenues

and/or savings may be needed. The research on markets for recyclables can be used to develop forecasts of

what revenues can reasonably be expected. This information is a valuable quantitative addition to the largely

qualitative process of deciding which recycling program alternative to select, providing a gauge of the cost

of each alternative. Costs of transportation and equipment and avoided costs must also be considered.

Figure 11

Percentages of materials by weight in the solid-waste

stream ofUnited States municipalities, 1988 (data from

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

categories, which might include: regulations and guidelines; waste stream composition; market value ofwastes;

port physical constraints, equipment capability, and

operating constraints; public relations and education

requirements; and financial constraints. These are discussed briefly below.

Regulations and Guidelines-The summary ofthe regulatory requirements and policy directives completed

earlier in the planning process should be used to identify constraints that will affect a recycling program. The

regulating entities that will influence a port-based recycling system will depend on the circumstances, but they

could include MARPOL Annex V and its national implementing legislation, and federal, state, city, town, and

local governments. A port-based collection system for

recycling should strive to meet or exceed the requirements from all applicable regulating entities. A table of

regulations may be used to identify the most stringent of

each entity's regulations. Such a table will list each facet of

a collection system for recycling, with the corresponding

requirements of each relevant regulatory entity. The most

stringent guideline in each area should be incorporated

into the program design specifications. An example of a

format for a regulatory matrix is presented in Figure 12;

this may be adjusted according to circumstances.

Waste Stream Composition-The types and amounts of

wastes and recyclable materials found in the waste

streams from vessels and from the port will have a

direct impact on what recycling alternatives are feasible. If volumes of recyclables are large and a steady

Physical and Operating Constraints-Recycling alternatives must conform to the spatial limitations of the

port, and equipment must be able to handle the quantities of recyclables expected. The information needed

to determine physical, operating, and procedural constraints and equipment capabilities collected earlier in

this process must be considered.

Publicity and Education-The amount of publicity and

education needed for port users and personnel for

each recycling alternative should be considered. Publicity and education efforts have financial implications

for the program and will affect its success as well as the

public image of the port. These should be decided by

upper management.

Financial Constraints-There will certainly be limitations to funding and financial management resources,

and these may constrain the development of recycling

alternatives. Financial constraints will include limitations on capital investments and cost of program labor

and administration. Such limitations should be incorporated into the criteria for recycling alternatives.

Identification of Program Alternatives

Once program criteria are established and, if necessary,

accepted by management or program funding sources,

alternatives must be identified. These may range from

setting up a program for dockside collection (vessel

wastes) or for port-generated wastes (restaurants, boat

yards, other tenants) only, to developing an integrated

program for dock and port wastes. Handling and operations may be undertaken by one or more of the

following groups: port personnel, contractors, municipal personnel, and volunteers. Figure 13 provides a
___________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 29

Storage

Period

Containment

Medical

Waste

At Sea:

Dumping

Guidelines

At Sea:

On Land:

Recycling

Laws

Figure 12

Example of how to use a table of regulatory specifications to formulate regulatory requirements for a recycling program.

form which can be completed for each alternative, to

identify who is responsible for each part of a recyclables

collection system.

Level of Program Formality-The choice must be made

between a formal or an informal approach. A formal

collection system for recycling would include the collection of materials and all other activities needed to

get those materials to market. If market arrangements

do not exist or the quantity of a specific material is too

variable, a formal program for that material is not practical. In an informal program, a collection area is designated for reusable materials such as fishing net, wood,

or cable, which are then made available at no charge to

port users and community residents. The port will avoid

disposal costs, if the materials are in fact taken for

reuse. Even in an informal program, the recycling coordinator will need to designate a collection area and

provide lighting and signage. In ports where this approach has been used, containers are provided for different materials, and a level ground area or pallet is

provided for bulky items. The recycling coordinator

should check the designated collection area periodically to make sure that the materials are in fact being

taken, and make arrangements for their removal and

disposal if they are not. The recycling coordinator may

need to reevaluate the informal program periodically.

Obtaining Participation-Another consideration is

whether participation in the program will be voluntary

or mandatory. Mandatory participation may be difficult

to implement. Ways to encourage participation in a
30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

....;.;.:.;.;.:.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.

T~~imi :f.ijMit~i~J

Contractor

Port

Personnel

Municipal

Personnel

Volunteer

Figure 13

Example of a form which may be used to chart personnel responsibilities for the operation of a recycling program.

Figure 14

The universal recycling symbol.

above the containers as well as markings on containers

are essential. Depending on market conditions and

regulations, it may be necessary to further indicate

what items made from the material can be accepted.

For example, plastic food containers, but not plastic

beverage containers, may be acceptable. Posters and/

or signs must be placed around the port both to show

where to discard recyclable materials and to encourage

participation.

Equipment-Collection containers will be required, but

they need not be elaborate or expensive-they just

have to work. Containers will vary in size and type depending upon the size of the port, the type of material being

recovered, transportation issues, and demand. Container

size will affect the servicing schedule, as they must be

emptied often enough to prevent overflowing. Inappropriate containers can jeopardize program success.

If the recycling containers too closely resemble garbage containers, port users will be confused and will

contaminate recyclable materials with garbage. This

problem can be minimized by using different types of

containers for recyclables and garbage, as well as by

signage. Containers for collecting recyclables should be

marked with the universal "chasing arrows" recycling

symbol (Fig. 14). Recycling containers may be further

distinguished from garbage containers by painting the

two types ofreceptables in very different colors.

Recycling containers must also be marked to indicate

what materials are acceptable. Signs placed at eye level

Degree of Material Separation-The recycling coordinatorshould explore the level ofsorting to be required.

The decision to accept commingled (mixed) recyclable

materials or to require port users to separate recyclable

materials into different containers will affect everything

else about a recyclables collection system. This decision

will be based on the existence of markets, market specifications, and market arrangements.

voluntary program include imposing waste-disposal fees

according to volume of waste; education and program

promotion; and ease of use and access.
___________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 31

Recycling containers may include 55-gallon drums,

fish totes, custom-built receptacles, and pallets for wood,

metal, cable, and nets. Windscreens and shields may

be needed to address aesthetic concerns; carts, hoists,

forklifts, or other hauling equipment will probably be

required.

Siting and Signage-Collection containers should be

positioned for easy and convenient access by port users.

Recycling containers should be placed near or adjacent

to other garbage collection containers, which will help

prevent recyclable materials from being contaminated

with garbage. A designated "waste management area"

for both garbage and recycling collection containers

has been found to be effective. Another approach used

at some ports is to position recycling and refuse containers at the head of the dock, with designated collection or stockpile areas for large items.

Frequency of Emptying-An appropriate emptying

schedule will prevent container overflow and the resultant mess. If port users view the area as messy, they will

associate it with refuse and tend to contaminate

recyclables, which will then lose market value. Port

users may also conclude that their efforts to recycle are

wasted, and quit participating in the program.

Transportation From the Port-The buyer or end user

will often pick up recyclable materials, or a port may be

able to arrange with a waste collection service to haul

recyclable materials for no charge or for a share of the

profits. The port may also arrange to transport recyclable materials itself, or to have vendors or volunteers

remove recyclables.

Evaluation of Alternatives and Selection of a

Program

Once feasible recycling alternatives have been identified, the recycling coordinator must evaluate them on

the basis of both quantitative (profit/loss) and qualitative considerations.

Quantitative Analysis-Financial benefits will include

not only revenues from the sale of recyclables but also

avoided disposal costs, which can be estimated as the

cost of collection, transportation, and landfill disposal

(or incineration) of a given weight or volume of waste.

Ifwarranted by the potential size and complexity of a

collection system for recycling, a model can be developed on a computer spreadsheet specifically for the

quantitative portion of the evaluation. An example of

such a model is shown in Figure 15. Variables which

serve as inputs to the model will include:

• Participation/recovery rates expected for each segment of the recycling program (from vessels and

from the port itself).

• Revenues based on recycled material prices, and savings from avoided costs.

• Transportation purchases and operating costs.

• Processing purchases and operating costs.

• Administration salaries and overhead costs.

• Publicity and education costs.

The spreadsheet model will yield the financial result

of each alternative under evaluation. Sensitivity analyses can then be conducted to determine the effects of

changes in each of the variables on the bottom line.

Qualitative Anal~Becausemany benefits ofrecycling

cannot be evaluated from a financial point of view, the

evaluation ofrecycling alternatives should include a qualitative analysis. This will usually take the form of a discussion with a cross section of those affected by the potential

collection system. This discussion may include the ultimate decision-maker for the program, port users, port

personnel, and/or an advisory panel established for this

purpose. A spreadsheet may be used to structure the

presentation and discussion of alternatives (Fig. 16).

Selection of the Best Alternative-Next, the program

to be implemented must be selected. The decisionmaking process will vary by situation. The recycling

coordinatorshould combine the results ofthe quantitative analysis, if there is one, with those ofthe qualitative

analysis, and recommend a preferred alternative. However, the decision on the alternative to be implemented

may not rest with the recycling coordinator.

The collection system for recycling should have a

quantitative goal by which program success may be

evaluated. A goal of diverting 5% to 10% ofthe waste to

recycling is not unreasonable for the first year of the

program. Mter the first year, the recycling coordinator

should reevaluate and adjust the goal based on the

waste stream and on market conditions.

Publicity and Education

Once equipment and service arrangements for collection have been made, the recycling coordinator must

inform port users and personnel about the new program. Personnel should be informed before port users,

so that they can answer questions from users or direct

them to those who can. An awareness campaign for

port users should begin shortly before the start of the

program. This campaign should explain how the program will work, where port users can ask questions

about the program, and the benefits of recycling. If
Figure 15

A model which may be followed in conducting

a quantitative analysis of recycling program alternatives.

Sensitivity Analysis

Regulations

Physical, Equipment Capability,

and Operating Constraints

Total Municipal

Solid Waste

Recyclable

Portion

Profitability

of

Alternative

g" ~'-g (l) I"l ~. "'1

(l) '(:5 0:0 ,.. ::l _ ~. "'1 C

'" 5'::l '" g()q ()q. (l)

1"l"O 9o;;l

1Il0C(l)0.

::l ::l 0""00

0.~=-="'1::l "0 ~. I"l 0 0 o::l~()q,..

;:; C

30

ibg ~. VJ t"'/) -,... ·O",-::r'

(") '" j;J'1Il o 9. tn' ;::;

~.::ln

C. '"

_. o::r' t"'/)

0. III ()q ..., ..... (l) -::l I"l ::;

"'1 C;;' dG ::l.0

0. (l) g.~ "'~. M III aq' "'1 III ::.. 3

::l ::l ~. ~. ,.. 0. 3 (l) E I"l ~"O ~. v ... 0 ~. 0 '" "0 ::l 0: ;:; r;; Q~::;IIlO ,... n _. ::::5 ....,

~"'~~::r'

1Il000~"O

~? ..., ::l

1"l"O ~. ,..

~(l)3::r'S '" ::l."O (l) ()q

2'00"'1

0

_ 0. "'1 (l)

"0 ;:;. -Q C III ::l I"l

0

g~~ =-=3 ~. .::l <: O. III ()q (1l

..., (")"0 '" '<: (1l 0 "'1 '" ::b "'1 ::l 0 t!.

I"l ,.. ~~ ,..

::r'::r'1"l1ll0

::l (l) ,..3 <:

$"0 ~. C "'1 ~. (l) '" (l)o9o><t!.

'" ()q "0

5' §- Q. 3 5' ::l. 5. C;;' '" 5'~ (l)"'1;'()q,..

O"Co9o::r' a 5 E. (l) (l)

I"l ~. 0."0 ::tl

::r' ::l "'1;;l c()qO"O'" "'1 . (l) ()q '::"l 0 I"l • ,.. 0 3 <;

"O::r'::l o C. III (1l

"" ::l ::l (l) ::b '" C 0. :><"

"'1C '" '" I"l (l) ~. 0 ,o.r;;...,

ColO

Nl zi

r:;-

eo

'tlo

"'l

... z-\>0

Cl
_________________________________ Chapter 3: Recycling 33

decals, video tapes, port newsletters, and newsletter

inserts listing port charges. In areas where port users

are not generally transient, advertisements or public

service announcements in local newspapers and on

local radio stations have also been used. 0 matter how

your publicity campaign works, be sure the recycling

program is explained simply and directly.

Program Implementation

Immediately before the program is implemented, cerRecovery Rate

tain steps should be taken to help ensure program

success. The recycling coordinator should:

• Re-eonfirm the planned buyers ofrecyclables and the

arrangements for pickup and delivery to market. If

market conditions have changed, it may be necessary

to adjust the program before it begins.

• Make sure containers and signage are in place. The

timing of placing containers and signage is important

in getting a program off to a good start. If the containers are in place too long before the program

starts, port users may get into the habit of using them

Recyclable

Revenues

• End Users

• Scrap Merchants

Transportation

• Port Supplied

• Contractor Supplied

• Other Supplied

_._~._....._.......,..

Processing

• Time to Implement

• Conformity to

Existing Operations

Administration

• Auditing Methods

• Operational Control

PublicitylEducation

• Port Users

• Dockside Personnel

• Other Port Personnel

• Public Relations Value

-.-AO.oJ''V'O'.,...

~-., ~.,

....., ••••,.._-.....

........................

.,••·.,.••••·•••••" •.••••••·•.•,u

...........................

__..__.. -.w,

""..,,, ,.

.....................•....... .n·•••••••,••••••••••••••

.........................•...

• •••••••·•·•••••,••• n ••·•••

... .•..•....._......_~_.

• ••.••.•.•n'••nn,....."A<O ..

Figure 16

Example of a spreadsheet approach to a qualitative analysis of recycling program alternatives.
34 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

incorrectly. Conversely, if containers are placed after

the start of the program, port users will view the

program as poorly designed. As a rule of thumb,

containers and signs should be put in place no more

than 2 weeks prior to the program's start.

• Conduct a kick-off event to mark the start of the

port's recycling program. A meeting may be appropriate for a port where users are not transient. At a

port with primarily transient users, festive decorations

or a celebration may be appropriate to mark the start of

the program. Coordinating the recycling program kickoff with an annual port or city event is a good idea.

Program Maintenance

It is not enough to simply start a collection system for

recycling and expect it to run by itself. The recycling

coordinator should:

• Regularly evaluate the program for effectiveness.

• Communicate the results of the program to port users, personnel, and management.

• Keep port users interested in the program.

• Make changes in the program where necessary.

No recycling program is static. The amount of recyclable materials collected can change; collection methods

can prove ineffective; and markets for recyclable materials

can fail or develop. The recycling coordinator must be

prepared to change the program as warranted and then

publicize the change. However, port managementshould

commit at least 6 months to 1 year to the recyclables

collection program regardless of early success or failure,

in order for the program to have a chance to catch on.
Chapter 4

Costs ofWaste Management

Introduction

Compliance with MARPOL Annex V by seafarers will

result in the collection of greater volumes of garbage at

ports. The size and location of ports, in addition to the

types and numbers of vessels they service, affect the cost

of solid-waste management operations. Labor and disposal costs vary significantly nationally and internationally, and play an important role in determining acceptable cost structures and disposal options.

Revenues generated by the port from fees and from

recycling programs may be used to offset their costs. In

addition, efforts to reduce the amount of garbage requiring disposal, including recycling, will reduce costs

and will benefit ports, vessels, and the environment.

This chapter discusses the costs of waste management

and ways to avoid and to recover costs.

Expenses and Revenues _

The net cost of waste management will be the sum of

expenses to dispose of and to recycle wastes, minus

revenues from recycled materials (Fig. 17). The port

may wish to offset this amount through fees charged to

vessels or by generating other revenue. Waste management expenses include the cost of equipment and labor for collection, treatment and storage, transportation, and disposal (Fig. 17).

When recycling is part of the solid-waste management strategy, the costs and revenues associated with

recycling must be calculated when determining the

total cost of waste management. Recycling costs will

include equipment rental and transportation. There

will be either recycling fees, or revenue from the sale of

recyclable materials. The net waste disposal cost avoided

due to recycling will be based on the amount (tonnage)

of waste diverted from disposal, and is calculated as a

recycling revenue (Fig. 17).

Reduction of waste generation, and hence management costs, is viewed as the preferred alternative in

waste management. Recycling can be used as a method

ofreducing waste by ports in the same way that it is used

by municipalities.

Cost avoidance also affects total cost. Simple cost

avoidance strategies include the use of readily available

port or industry-related equipment such as wooden

tote boxes, barrels, or used shipping containers for

garbage collection, separation, and storage. Recycling

costs to the port may be minimized by integrating port

collection with an existing municipal collection program,

although a system for cost and revenue sharing must be

devised. Some discarded items, for example, fishing net in

some communities, are highly sought after for unrelated

uses such as wall decorations and sports equipment. Disposal costs can be avoided simply by making such items

available to the general public.

Recovery ofWaste Management Costs _

Although ports in the United States are required to

provide adequate reception facilities for ships' garbage,

they may recover the costs of doing so; however, there is

no mandate for how this is done. No single means of

cost recovery will be suitable for all ports, nor is any

port limited to a single means.

It is important that port disposal fees are not prohibitively high, since illegal dumping ofwastes at sea can be

performed at no cost (until the violator is caught). In

effect, high fees discourage compliance and provide no

incentive for retrieval of debris from the ocean.

Disparities among the fees charged by competing

ports may alter traffic patterns. In addition, the competitive position of a port may be affected by the fees it

charges for garbage reception services. Ports must balance their legal obligations under MARPOL Annex V

(as well as other obligations) with their business objectives. Fortunately, the simple directive in Annex V that

ports provide adequate reception facilities for garbage

is preserved in U.S. regulations that allow ports to meet

this obligation in the most cost-effective way possible.

Costs associated with garbage reception facilities at

ports are typically passed on to port users in one of two

ways. Either the user is charged directly for the use of

the service, or the costs are absorbed into general port

charges. Some ports have a user fee for wastes, which is

sometimes applied to all vessels regardless of whether

or not they offload wastes.

The mechanism for recovering costs can influence the

behavior of potential users of the port. For example, if

direct charges are deemed too high, users may hold their

garbage for disposal in ports with more reasonable charges,

and have some incentive to illegally dump their garbage at

35
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

1~.lfl~I;'l~~1 • Collection (including

labor)

• Treatment/storage

• Transportation

• Disposal (tipping fee)

1.lllrlll

• Equipment rental

• Transportation

• Material(s) recycling

fee*

1111\tll~lil • Material(s) revenue*

• Net avoided waste

disposal costs**

Waste disposal costs +

[

Cost of recycling

materials

Revenue from ] =

recycled materials

Total

waste

disposal

costs

Figure 17

Calculation of the net cost of waste management at a port, based on expenses and revenues. *There are either fees or

revenues for recycling. **Net avoided waste disposal costs = (amount of waste diverted x cost of waste disposal) - cost of

recycling diverted waste.

sea. While a port may prefer to have vessels offload garbage in other ports, it risks loss of business by making the

cost ofthe required service too high. On the other hand, a

special use fee for wastes applied to all vessels offers no

disincentive for offloading garbage and, if properly set,

will just cover the port's waste management costs.

On the whole, ports that provide adequate service at

a minimal and uniform cost per unitshould retain their

competitive position while complying with the law.

Again, the absence of stipulations on how to provide

and finance adequate reception facilities permits ports

to use their ingenuity in solving this problem.
Chapter 5

Encouraging Compliance with Annex V

Compliance with MARPOL Annex V is important for

several reasons. Plastic debris is costly to the environment and to coastal communities. Plastic does not disintegrate in the marine environment the way some

other materials do. It entangles some animals, is ingested by others, and washes up on beaches as litter.

Although compliance is encouraged through surveillance, enforcement, and penalties, competing priorities, limited agency resources, and the vast number of

vessels and ports covered by MARPOL Annex V make

enforcement difficult. Therefore, compliance depends

heavily on voluntary efforts by seafarers. Incentives and

education are typically used to encourage voluntary

compliance. The role of ports in these activities is discussed briefly below.

Incentives _

Well-planned port reception facilities for garbage

encourage use if they are viewed by seafarers as convenient and reasonably priced. Conversely, facilities discourage use when they are not convenient or are costly.

Convenience includes both facility location in relation

to location of vessels in port, and administrative procedures necessary to gain access to port reception facilities. The siting and equipment factors detailed in Chapter 2 (e.g., receptacle capacity, lighting, access, and

security), when integrated into a well-planned waste

management strategy, promote use of a facility. Ports

should be aware that Coast Guard regulations not only

encourage citizens to report dumping violations by ships,

but also encourage seafarers to report inadequate port

reception facilities (see Appendix 2).

Education _

Education plays a major role in gaining voluntary compliance. Seafarers must become aware both of the requirements ofAnnex V, and of how garbage is handled

in each port they use. Once seafarers understand the

importance of compliance and the reasons for restrictions on at-sea disposal of garbage, it is easier for them

to comply. Education is also a tool in promoting the

establishment and use of port reception facilities for

garbage.

For ports, providing adequate and accessible reception facilities is good business practice, in addition to

being required by law. Good garbage facilities promote

good user and community relations, ensure retention

of the port's certificate of adequacy, and minimize the

loss of opportunities from tourism and clean-up costs

associated with a filthy port and illegal dumping.

There is an abundance of material available to assist

ports with their education efforts. These include posters, brochures, stickers, and placards developed specifically to educate seafarers about Annex V and the consequences of at-sea disposal of plastics and other material. Ports can provide a service to their users by making

these materials readily available. There are also case

studies of port projects on implementing MARPOL

Annex V which detail what was done and what lessons

and insights were gained. These materials can be used

by themselves or incorporated by solid-waste management planners into unique education and awareness

programs.

Many of the education materials have been collected

and are distributed through Marine Safety Offices at

U.S. Coast Guard district offices around the country.

37

Acknowledgments

As always, a report of this sort would not be possible

without the collaborative effort of many individuals.

Special thanks are extended to the A.T. Kearney staff

who helped draft the original synthesis of literature on

port reception facilities for garbage which led to this

document; also to those who provided continuing input throughout its development, especially Kathleen

Allison, Ann Anderson, and Christina Bramante. Special thanks also go to Lissa Martinez for her work on the

original literature synthesis. The manuscript was significantly improved in response to comments and recommendations from two anonymous reviewers.

Thanks are also due to Mark McEwen,James Farley,

and the Working Group on Port Reception Facilities of

the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee for their review and

comments on various drafts of the material presented

here. Thanks also go to the many unnamed seafarers

and port operators whose anecdotes, insights, and experiences were incorporated into the references, and

into our understanding of the problems and issues of

providing adequate port reception facilities for garbage and ofsolving the problems of marine debris.

Thanks also go to David Messinger and Krista Grigg

for their tireless efforts in developing the graphics.

Funding for this project was provided by the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Entanglement Research Program to the Kearney/Centaur

Division, A.T. Kearney, Inc. (contract no. 50ABNF-I00058).

39

Literature Cited and Selected References

Anonymous.

1990. International Association of Independent Tankers, inadequate waste disposal facilities. Mar. Pollut. Bull.

21(11):499.

A. T. Kearney, Inc.

1990. Recoverable resource audit handbook. Prepared under

conttact to the U.S. Env. Protect. Agency, Region II, for the World

Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future.

A. T. Kearney, Inc., Kearney/Centaur Div.

1989. Dealing with garbage under MARPOL Annex V: examples of compliance approaches used by the shipping

industry. Prepared under contract 52ABNF800132 for

NOAA, U.S. Dep. Commer. Available from A. T. Kearney,

Inc., Alexandria, VA.

1991a. Revision of the port reception facility section of the

IMO guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex

V. Prepared under contract 52ABNF-I-0058 for NOAA,

U.S. Dep. Commer.

1991b. Estimating the environmental costs of OCS oil and

gas development and marine oil spills: a general purpose

model. Prepared under contract no. 14-35-0001-30500 for

the Minerals Manage. Serv., U.S. Dep. Interior.

1992. Waste-handling at recreational boating facilities. Prepared under contract no. 68-C8-0105 for the U.S. Env. Protect. Agency.

Bayliss, R., and C. D. Cowles.

1989. On the impact of MARPOL Annex V upon solid waste

disposal facilities of coastal Alaskan communities. NWAFC

Proc. Rep. 89-20. Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center,

Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Seattle, WA.

Berney, L. A.

1989. A compendium ofimplementing materials in the United

States. Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Prepared by PSI, GMPS-I.

Cal Recovery Systems, Inc.

1988. Evaluation of plastics recycling systems. NWAFC Proc.

Rep. 88-16, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, NMFS,

NOAA, Seattle, WA.

Center for Marine Conservation

1989. Marine Debris Information Offices, Atlantic coast/Gulf

of Mexico and Pacific coast: annual report, October 1,1988-

September 30, 1989. Prepared under contract 52ABNNF800-133 for NOAA, U.S. Dep. Commer.

1990. Marine Debris Information Offices, Atlantic coast/Gulf

of Mexico and Pacific coast: annual report, October I, 1989-

September 30,1990. Prepared under contract 52ABNNF800-133 for NOAA, U.S. Dep. Commer.

Center for Marine Conservation and A. T. Kearney, Inc., Kearney/

Centaur Div.

1990. Development and evaluation of education techniques

to eliminate at-sea disposal of plastics. Prepared under

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant NA89AA-H-SK007 for NOAA, U.S.

Dep. Commer.

Chertow, M.

1989. Garbage solutions: a public official's guide to recycling

and alternative solid waste management technologies. Prepared by Natl. Resource Recovery Assn. for U.S. Conf. of

Mayors.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental

Resources.

n.d. Estimating composition and quantities of solid waste

generation.

Doherty, L.

1990. Pilot project to encourage proper handling and recycling of marine debris at a series of small ports in New

Jersey. Dep. Env. Protection, NJ.

Doyle, E.

n.d. UK survey of waste management practice of small ports,

boatyards, and marinas. U.K. Dep. Env. and Comm. ofthe

European Communities.

Dunaway, M.

1990. Togiak pilot project floating garbage pick up service. Southwest Alaska Municipal Conf. and Univ. Alaska

Marine Advisory Program.

DPA Group, Inc.

1989. Plastic debris in the aquatic environment-Halifax workshop report. Report on a workshop held at the Citadel

Inn, Halifax, May 1989.

Eastern Research Group.

1988. Development of estimates of garbage disposition in the

maritime sectors. Prepared for Transportation Systems

Center, U.S. Dep. Transportation.

Eaton, P., and R. Parker.

1990. A case for the management of marine litter in Atlantic

Canada. Paper presented at the 12th Canadian Waste Management Conference, St. Johns, Newfoundland, October

1990.

Environmental Defense Fund.

1984. United States and international authorities applicable

to entanglement of marine mammals and other organisms

in lost or discard fishing gear and other debris. Prepared

for Marine Mammal Comm., NMFS, U.S. Dep. Commer.

1985. To burn or not to burn: the economic advantages of

recycling over garbage incineration for New York City.

Franklin Associates.

1990. Characterization ofmunicipal solid waste in the United

States: 1990 update. Prepared for the U.S. Env. Protect.

Agency.

Gill, S., and T. Olson.

1990. Study of plastic waste management aboard USS

Doyle. Ships Material Engineering Dep. Res. and Develop.

Rep. DTRC/SME-88/71, David Taylor Research Center.

Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc.

1990. Quarterly progress reports to the National Marine Fisheries Service for Southeast Initiative to comply with MARPOL

Annex V prohibitions on at-sea dumping of plastics.

Horsman, P. V.

1988. A response to the draft guidelines for the implementation of Annex V regulations for the prevention of pollution

by garbage from ships. Prepared for Mar. Cons. Soc.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

1988. Garbage in Europe: technologies, economics, and

trends.

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization.

1978. Guidelines on the provision of adequate reception facilities in ports. Part III (sewage) and part IV (garbage). London.

41
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

Jacobi, H., et al.

1988. Marine pollution due to transport of bulk cargoes by

ships. Prepared for the Fed. Env. Agency, Federal Republic of Germany.

Kasoulides, G.

1989. Paris Memorandum of Understanding: six years of regional enforcement. Mar. Pollul. Bull. 20:255-261.

Kiselev, V. A.

1988. Special areas for preventing pollution ofthe sea. Mar.

Policy 12:241-246.

KVB, Inc.

1987. Development ofmethodology to reduce the disposal of

non-<iegradable refuse into the marine environment. Prepared under contract no. 85-ABC-00203 for NOAA, U.S.

Dep. Commer.

Laist, D. W.

1986. Plastic pollution in the marine environment, a statement of the Marine Mammal Commission to the Coast

Guard and Navigation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Hearing on the

problem of nonbiodegradable plastic refuse in the mar.ne

environment, and to examine the options that exist on all

levels for responding to it, p. 21-31. 99th Congress, 2nd

session, August 12. House, Serial 99-47.

Leschine, T.

n.d. Economic charges as incentives for pollution control. Insl. for Marine Studies, Univ. Washington, Seattle.

Lobos, I.

1990. Port of Everett employee leads the way in recycling. The Seattle Times,July 20, Seattle, WA.

Liverpool University Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies.

1991. A survey ofU.K. reception facilities for oil and garbage

with reference to MARPOL Annexes I and V. Report to

U.K. Dep. Transport.

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the

International Maritime Organization.

1986. Implementation of Annexes IV and VofMARPOL 73/

78: implementation of Annex V to protect living resources

from entanglement and ingestion of plastics (including fishing nets). Submitted by the United States. 23rd session,

June, agenda item 9, MEPC/INF. 19.

1987a. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78,

proposed considerations and actions relating to future implementation of Annex V. Submitted by the United States.

24th session, February, agenda item 10, MEPC 24/10/1.

1987b. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: research being conducted by the United States to

assess and determine how best to address problems caused

by persistent marine debris. Submitted by the United States.

24th session,January, agenda item 10, MEPC 24/INF. 10.

1987c. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: report of Working Group on Optional Annexes.

24th session, February, agenda item 10, MEPC 24/WP. 5.1.

1987d. Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 24th session. 24th session, March, MEPC 24/

19.

1987e. Consideration of the Gulf of Mexico as a special area

under Annex V. Submitted by the United States. 25th

session, MEPC 25/5/9.

1987f. MEPC Secretariat: provision of reception facilit:es.

25th session, MEPC 25/6.

1987g. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: guidelines for the effective implementation of the

provision of Annex V. Submitted by Spain. 25th session,

MEPC 25/9/1.

1987h. Reply to MEPC/Circ. 171: identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines

for designating special areas under Annexes I, II, and

V. Submitted by Norway. 25th session, MEPC 25/15/1.

1987i. Reply to MEPC/Circ. 171: identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines

for designating special areas under Annexes I, II, and

V. Submitted by Sweden. 25th session, MEPC 25/15/2.

1987j. Reply to MEPC/Circ. 171: identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines

for designating special areas under Annexes I, II, and

V. 25th Session, MEPC 25/15/4.

1987k. United States' recommendation for technical criteria

to determine special area status under MARPOL 73/78:

identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines for designating special areas under

Annexes I, II, and V. Submitted by the United States. 25th

session, MEPe 25/15/5.

19871. Reply to MEPC/Cire. 171: identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines

for designating special areas under Annexes I, II, and

V. Submitted by Canada. 25th session, MEPC 25/15/7.

1987m. Reply to MEPC/Circ. 171: identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines

for designating special areas under Annexes I, II, and

V. Submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany. 25th

session, MEPC 25/15.

1987n. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: protection of living resources from entanglement in

fishing nets and debris. Draft report of the 17th session of

the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of the FAO, Rome, 18-

22 May 1987. 25th session, MEPC 25/9/2.

19870. Provision of reception facilities: collection of garbage

in the ports of Bremen and Bremerhaven. Submitted by

the Federal Republic of Germany. 25th session, agenda item

6, MEPC 25/INF. 17.

1987p. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: draft guidelines for the implementation of Annex V,

regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from

ships. Submitted by the United States. 25th session, agenda

item 9, MEPC 25/9/3. October.

1987q. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: proposed Annex V guidelines on implementation.

Submitted by Canada. 25th session, August, agenda item 9,

MEPC 25/9.

1987r. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: report of the Working Group on Optional Annexes.

25th session, December, agenda item 9, MEPC 25/WP.IO.

1987s. Format of the questionnaire on facilities in ports for

the reception of waste water containing noxious liquid substances from ships carrying chemicals in bulk. In Provision

of reception facilities, MEPC working paper. 25th session,

agenda item 6, MEPC 25/WP. 11.

1987t. Draft report of the Marine Environment Protection

Committee on its 25th session. MEPC 25/WP. 12 and Adds.

1 and 2.

1987u. Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 25th session. 25th session, December, MEPC 25/20.

1988a. Consideration of the North Sea as a special area under Annex V. Submitted by the United Kingdom. 26th

session, MEPC 26/6.

1988b. Uniform interpretation and amendments of MARPOL

73/78, including proposals for special area status: consideration of the North Sea as a special area under Annex

V. Submitted by the United Kingdom. 26th session,June,

agenda item 6, MEPC 26/6.
________________________________ Literature Cited and Selected References 43

1988c. Provision of reception facilities: World Bank's environmental programme for the Mediterranean, note by the

Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea (ACOPS) and

the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). 26th session, August, agenda item 7, MEPC 26/1NF. 23.

1988d. Provision of reception facilities: submission of information on reception facilities in ports. 26th session, MEPC

26/7.

1988e. Provision of reception facilities: pilot project to improve the delivery to shore reception facilities ofship-generated residues coming under MARPOL Annexes 1 and

11. Submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany. 26th

session, August, agenda item 7, MEPC 26/1NF.26.

1988f. Implementation ofAnnexes V and IV ofMARPOL 73/

78: notification to IMO concerning the establishment ofthe

Baltic Sea area as a "special area" for the purposes ofAnnex

V of MARPOL 73/78. Submitted by Denmark, Finland,

the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of

Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the USSR. 26th session,

MEPC 26/10.

I988g. Draft guidelines for the implementation of Annex V,

regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from

ships. 26th session, September, MEPC 26/10.

1988h. Comments on the draft guidelines for the implementation of Annex V, regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships. Submitted by Finland. 26th

session, MEPC 26/10/2.

1988i. Implementation ofAnnexes Vand IV ofMARPOL 73/

78. Submitted by Spain. Note. 28 july 1988. 26th session,

MEPC 26/10/3.

1988j. Implementation ofAnnexes V and IV ofMARPOL 73/

78: Comments on the draft guidelines for the implementation ofAnnex V, regulations for the prevention of pollution

by garbage from ships. Submitted by the USSR. 26th session, August, MEPC 26/10/5.

1988k. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL 73/

78: comments on the draft guidelines for the implementation

of Annex V, regulations for the prevention of pollution by

garbage from ships. 26th session, August, MEPC 26/10/6.

19881. Implementation ofAnnexes V and IV of MARPOL 73/

78: report of the Working Group on Optional Annexes.

26th session, agenda item 10, MEPC 26/WP.6.

1988m. Prevention of pollution by noxious solid substances

in bulk and consideration of possible development of new

Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78: an assessment of dry bulk

cargo losses at loading and unloading ports. Submitted by

Canada. 26th session, MEPC 26/11/1.

1988n. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: comments on the draft guidelines for the implementation qf Annex V, regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, Submitted by the Netherlands.

26th session, agenda item 10, MEPC 26/10/4.

19880. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78. Submitted by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO/IOC). 26th session, july,

agenda item 10.

1988p. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL

73/78: enforcement of pollution conventions, identification of the sources of discharged oil, results of research for

the recording of oil victims on the German North Sea coast,

including research for the establishment for the cause and

burdening of the German Bight ships' refuse. Submitted

by the Federal Republic of Germany. 26th session, june,

agenda item 10, MEPC 26/INF. 5.

1988q. Copy of the Ministerial Declaration of the Second

International Conference on the Protection of the North

Sea. Any other business, note by the Secretariat. 26th session, April, agenda item 24, MEPC 26/INF. 2.

1988r. Strategy for the protection of the marine environment. Any other business, note by the Secretariat. 26th

session, August, agenda item 24, MEPC 26/INF. 18.

1988s. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 26, Activities

of the Commission 1987. Any other business, submitted by

Helsinki Commission. 26th session, August, agenda item 24,

MEPC 26/INF. 19.

1989. Implementation of Annexes V and IV of MARPOL 73/

78: Information on waste generated by Iivestock-<:arrying

ships. Submitted by Kuwait. 27th session, February, agenda

item 8, MEPC 27/INF. 7.

1990a. Use of incinerators for disposing of residues. Any

other business, submitted by the Netherlands. 29th session,

MEPC 29/21/4.

I990b. Adequacy of shore reception facilities. Implementation ofAnnexes III, IV and VofMARPOL 73/78 and amendments to the IMDG Code to Cover Pollution Aspects. 29th

session, MEPC 29/6/2.

1990c. Technical Assistance Programme. 29th session,

MEPC 29/9.

1990d. Report of the IOC/FAO/UNEP review meeting on

the persistent synthetic materials pilot survey. 29th session, MEPC 29/INF. 15.

1990e. Designation ofthe GulfofMexico as a special area under

MARPOL Annex V. Uniform interpretation and amendments

of MARPOL 73/78 and the oil record book. Submitted by

the United States. 29th session, MEPC 29/INF. 17.

I990f. Reception ofwastes from ships in the Baltic Sea areaMARPOL 73/78 special area. Submitted by the Helsinki

Commission. 29th session, March, agenda item 21.

1990g. ROPME protocol concerning marine pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental

shelf. Submitted by the State of Kuwait. Any other business, 29th session, March, agenda item 29/INF. 25.

1990h. Final declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection ofthe North Sea. Submitted by the

Netherlands. Any other business, 29th session, March, agenda

item 21, MEPC 29/INF. 26.

1990i. Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting-action on marine

pollution. Submitted by the United States. Any other business, 29th session, March, agenda item 21, MEPC 29/INF. 29.

1990j. Implementation ofAnnexes II, IV, and VofMARPOL

73/78, including amendments to the IMDG code to cover

the pollution aspects, the Mediterranean Sea, and MARPOL

73/78, Annex V. Submitted by Italy. 30th session, August,

agenda item 11, MEPC 30/11.

1990k. Provision of reception facilities: directory of reception facilities for marine wastes in Canada. Submitted by

Canada. 30th session,june, agenda item 12, MEPC 30/INF. 2.

19901. Implementation ofAnnexes III, IV and VofMARPOL

73/78 and amendments to the IMDG code to cover pollution aspects: consideration of revision to the guidelines for

the implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 reception facilities for garbage. Submitted by the United States.

30th session, MEPC 30/11/1.

1990m. Provision of reception facilities: collection of garbage in the port of Bremen. Submitted by the Federal

Republic ofGermany. 30th session, September, agenda item

12, MEPC 30/INF. 11.

1990n. Provision ofreception facilities: adequacy ofshore facilities for the reception of garbage from ships. Draft of MEPC

circular, Request for action to ensure the availability and use of

adequate facilities in ports for the reception of garbage from

ships. 30th session, agenda item 12, MEPC 30/12.
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136

19900. Provision of reception facilities: provision of reception facilities for ships' garbage. Submitted by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). 30th session, October,

agenda item 12, MEPC 30/1NF. 18.

1990p. Provision of reception facilities: provision of reception facilities for ships' oil residues. Submitted by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). 30th session, October, agenda item 12, MEPC 30/1NF. 30.

1990q. Identification of particularly sensitive areas, including development of guidelines for designating special areas

under Annexes I, II, and V: amendment of the U.S. proposal for the establishment of a special area under Annex V

ofMARPOL 73/78. Submitted by Venezuela. 30th session,

November, agenda item 19, MEPC/INF. 36.

1990r. Draft report of the Marine Environment Protection

Committee on its 30th session. 30th session, November,

agenda item 24, MEPC 30/WP. 19.

MARTEC, Ltd.

1984. An assessment of dry granular bulk loading losses at

loading and unloading ports. Prepared for Env. Pro~ect.

Serv., Environment Canada.

Meade, K.

1990. The challenge facing packaging. Waste Age, March:

p. 123-126.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

1986. Solid waste stream assessment guidebook.

National Solid Waste Management Association.

1990. Recycling in the states, mid-year update 1990. Spec.

Rep.

Nightingale, D.

1988. Port of Seattle weighs options for handling MARPOL V

waste. World Wide Shipping, October/November.

Pacific Associates.

1988. A report to the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation on the effects of MARPOL Annex V on the

ports of Kodiak and Unalaska.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

1990. West Coast Marine Debris Recovery Project, summary

report. Prepared under Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant

NA89AA-H-SK003 for NOAA, U.S. Dep. Commer.

Pfiefer, M., and P. Maring.

1991. Marketing recycling in mainstream America. Biocycle,

January, p. 61-67.

Phillips, L.

1990. Waterfront harbor garbage study. Nantucket Map and

Legend,July.

Recht, F.

1988a. Report on a port-based project to reduce marine

debris. NWAFC Proc. Rep. 88-13, orthwest and Alaska

Fisheries Center, NMFS, NOAA, Seattle, WA.

1988b. Dealing with Annex V-reference guide for ports. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWR-23.

1990. Marina refuse and recycling facilities: U.S. West Coast

ports respond to MARPOL Annex V requirements and reduce costs. Paper presented at the Int. Marina Institute

Conference on Environmental Management for Marinas,

Washington, D.C., September 5-7.

Recht, F., and S. Lasseigne.

1989. Providing refuse reception facilities and more: The

port's role in the marine debris solution. In R. S. Shomura

and M. L. Godfrey (eds.), Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS SWFSC-154.

R. W. Beck and Associates.

1990. Solid and international waste management study for

Logan International Airport and Maritime Facilities.

Sadler, P. G., and]. King.

1990. Provision of reception facilities: study of mechanisms

for the financing of facilities in ports for the reception of

wastes from ships. 30th session, Marine Env. Protect.

Comm., agenda item 12, MEPC 30/INF. 32.

Sedlock,].

1990. Curbside sorting or source separation? Waste Age, October, p. 143-144.

United States Coast Guard.

1989a. Delegation report to the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 30th session, March 12-16.

1989b. MARPOL 73/78 Annex V enforcement policies and

procedures for the prevention of pollution by garbage from

ships. Commandant Instruct. M16450.30.

1989c. MARPOL 73/78 Annex V garbage reception facility

certification and enforcement program. Commandant Instruct. M16450.31.

1990a. Designation of the Gulf of Mexico as a special area

under Annex V of MARPOL 73/78. Marine Environmental Protection Committee, 30th session, March 1990.

1990b. Delegation report to the Marine Environment Protection Committee, 30th session, November 12-16.

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

n.d. Garbage; regulations on storage and movement on certain means of conveyance. 9 CFR 94.5.

United States Department of Transportation.

1988a. Regulations implementing the pollution prevention

requirements of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78: advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register,june 24.

1988b. Regulations implementing the pollution prevention

requirements ofAnnex V ofMARPOL 73/78. Federal Register, Vol. 53, no. 206, October 27.

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

1989. Decision-maker's guide to solid waste management. EPA/530/SW-89-072.

1990. Methods to manage and control plastic wastes. Report

to Congress. EPA 530-SW-89-05 I.

United States Marine Mammal Commission.

1991. Annual report, calendar year 1990.

United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1988. Report of the Interagency Task Force on Persistent

Marine Debris. U.S. Dep. Commer.

llnited States Office of Technology Assessment.

1989. Facing America's trash: what next for municipal solid

waste. OTA-0-424.

Virginia Department of Waste Management.

1990 Comprehensive municipal recycling: a collection program planning guide.

Walcoff and Associates, Inc.

1990. Compliance with the Marine Plastic Pollution Research

and Control Act. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard. Final

report to Congress, March.
Appendix 1

MARPOL Annex V, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution

by Garbage From Ships

Regulation 1: Dermitions _

For the purpose of this Annex:

(1) "Garbage" means all kinds of victual, domestic

and operational waste excluding fresh fish and parts

thereof, generated during the normal operation of the

ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically except those substances which are defined or

listed in other Annexes to the present Convention.

(2) "Nearest land." The term "from the nearest land"

means from the baseline from which the territorial sea

of the territory in question is established in accordance

with international law except that, for the purposes of

the present Convention "from the nearest land" off the

northeastern coast of Australia shall mean from a line

drawn from a point on the coast ofAustralia in latitude

1POO' South, longitude 142°08' East

to a point in latitude 10°35' South, longitude 141°55'

East,

thence to a point latitude 10°00' South, longitude

142°00' East,

thence to a point latitude g0 10' South, longitude 143°52'

East,

thence to a point latitude goOO' South, longitude 144°30'

East,

thence to a point latitude 13°00' South, longitude

144°00' East,

thence to a point latitude 15°00' South, longitude

146°00' East,

thence to a point latitude 18°00' South, longitude

147°00' East,

thence to a point latitude 21°00' South, longitude

153°00' East,

thence to a point on the coast of Australia in latitude

24°42' South, longitude 153°15' East.

(3) "Special area" means a sea area where for recognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographical and ecological condition and to the particular character of its traffic the adoption of special mandatory

methods for the prevention ofsea pollution by garbage

is required. Special areas shall include those listed in

Regulation 5 of this Annex.

Regulation 2: Application _

The provisions of this Annex shall apply to all ships.

Regulation 3: Disposal of Garbage Outside

Special Areas _

(1) Subject to the provisions ofRegulations 4, 5 and 6

of this Annex:

(a) the disposal into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage bags is prohibited;

(b) the disposal into the sea of the following garbage shall be made as far as practicable from the

nearest land but in any case is prohibited if the distance from the nearest land is less than:

(i) 25 nautical miles for dunnage, lining and packing materials which will float;

(ii) 12 nautical miles for food wastes and all other

garbage including paper products, rags, glass, metal,

bottles, crockery and similar refuse;

(c) disposal into the sea ofgarbage specified in subparagraph (b) (ii) of this Regulation may be permitted when it has passed through a comminuter or

grinder and made as far as practicable from the nearest land but in any case is prohibited if the distance

from the nearest land is less than 3 nautical miles.

Such comminuted or ground garbage shall be capable of passing through a screen with openings no

greater than 25 millimeters.

(2) When the garbage is mixed with other discharges

having different disposal or discharge requirements

the more stringent requirements shall apply.

Regulation 4: Special Requirements for

Disposal of Garbage _

(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this

Regulation, the disposal of any materials regulated by

this Annex is prohibited from fixed or floating platforms engaged in the exploration, exploitation and

associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources, and from all other ships when alongside or

within 500 meters of such platforms.

45
46 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 136 _

(2) The disposal into the sea of food wastes may be

permitted when they have been passed through a

comminuter or grinder from such fixed or floating

platforms located more than 12 nautical miles from

land and all other ships when alongside or within 500

meters ofsuch platforms. Such comminuted or ground

food wastes shall be capable of passing through a screen

with openings no greater than 25 millimeters.

Regulation 5: Disposal of Garbage Within

Special Areas

(1) For the purposes of this Annex the special areas

are the Mediterranean Sea area, the Baltic Sea area, the

Black Sea area, the Red Sea area and the "Gulfs area"

which are defined as follows:

(a) The Mediterranean Sea area means the Mediterranean Sea proper including the gulfs and seas

therein with the boundary between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea constituted by the 41°N parallel and bounded to the west by the Straits ofGibraltar

at the meridian of 5°36'W.

(b) The Baltic Sea area means the Baltic Sea proper

with the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland and

the entrance to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the Skaw in the Skagerrak at 57°44.8'N.

(c) The Black Sea area means the Black Sea proper

with the boundary between the Mediterranean and

the Black Sea constituted by the parallel 41°N.

(d) The Red Sea area means the Red Sea proper

including the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba bounded at the

south by the rhumb line between Ras si Ane (12°8.5'N,

43°19.6'£) and Husn Murad (l2°40.4'N, 43°30.2'£).

(e) The "Gulfs area" means the sea area located north

west of the rhumb line between Ras al Hadd (22°30'N,

59°48'£) and Ras al Fasteh (25°04'N, 61°25'£).

(2) Subject to the provisions of Regulation 6 of this

Annex:

(a) disposal into the sea ofthe following is prohibited:

(i) all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage bags; and

(ii) all other garbage, including paper products,

rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, dunnage, lining and packing materials;

(b) disposal into the sea of food wastes shall be

made as far as practicable from land, but in any case

not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.

(3) When the garbage is mixed with other discharges

having different disposal or discharge requirements

the more stringent requirements shall apply.

(4) Reception facilities within special areas:

(a) The Government of each Party to the Convention, the coastline of which borders a special area

undertakes to ensure that as soon as possible in all

ports within a special area, adequate reception facilities are provided in accordance with Regulation 7 of

this Annex, taking into account the special needs of

ships operating in these areas.

(b) The Government of each Party concerned shall

notifY the Organization of the measures taken pursuant to subparagraph (a) of this Regulation. Upon

receipt of sufficient notifications the Organization

shall establish a date from which the requirements of

this Regulation in respect of the area in question

shall take effect. The Organization shall notifY all

Parties of the date so established no less than twelve

months in advance of that date.

(c) After the date so established, ships calling also

at ports in these special areas where such facilities are

not yet available, shall fully comply with the requirements of this Regulation.

Regulation 6: Exceptions _

Regulations 3, 4 and 5 of this Annex shall not apply to:

(a) the disposal of garbage from a ship necessary

for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship and

those on board or saving life at sea; or

(b) the escape of garbage resulting from damage to

a ship or its equipment provided all reasonable precautions have been taken before and after the occurrence of the damage, for the purpose of preventing

or minimizing the escape; or

(c) the accidental loss of synthetic fishing nets or

synthetic material incidental to the repair of such

nets, provided that all reasonable precautions have

been taken to prevent such loss.

Regulation 7: Reception Facilities _

(1) The Government of each Party to the Convention

undertakes to ensure the provision of facilities at ports

and terminals for the reception of garbage, without

causing undue delay to ships, and according to the

needs of the ships using them.

(2) The Government of each Party shall notifY the

Organization for transmission to the Parties concerned

of all cases where the facilities provided under this

Regulation are alleged to be inadequate.
Appendix 2

Form for Reporting Alleged Inadequacy of

Port Reception Facilities for Garbage

1. Country: _

Name of port or area: _

Location in the port (e.g., berth/terminal/jetty): _

Date of incident: _

2. Type and amount of garbage for discharge to facility:

a. Total amount:

food waste m3

cargo associated waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m3

maintenance waste m3

other m3

b. Amount not accepted by the facility:

food waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m3

cargo associated waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m3

maintenance waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m3

other m3

3. Special problems encountered:

undue delay

'-" inconvenient locality of facilities

unreasonable charges for use of facilities

use of facility not technically possible

=:J special national regulations

other _

4. Remarks (e.g., information received from port authorities or operators of reception facilities: reasons given

concerning 2, above):

5. Ship's particulars: _

Name ofship:

Owner or operator: _

Distinctive number of letters: _

Port of registry: _

Number of persons on board: _

Date of completion of form Signature of Master

47