United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 1994 POLLUTION

PREVENTION

The Navy Needs Better

Plans for Reducing

Ship Waste Discharges

GAO/NSIAD-95-38

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-259190 

November 4, 1994

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

United States Senate

The Honorable Gary A. Franks

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we review the Navy’s Shipboard

Solid and Plastics Waste Management Program planning. Specifically, it

assesses (1) past and current planning for the shipboard solid waste

management program and (2) program results thus far.

Background In 1973, the United States and other maritime nations signed the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The

treaty, now in force with its 1978 protocol, includes five annexes. Annex V

regulates the discharge from ships of garbage and other solid

waste—paper, cardboard, metal, glass, and a wide range of plastics (such

as garbage bags, coffee cups, shrink wrap, and wire insulation). It

prohibits the discharge of paper, cardboard, metal, and glass waste near

land and in “special” areas1

 and of plastics anywhere at sea. The treaty

exempts warships and other naval vessels of the signing states, but

encouraged governments to apply the pollution controls to such ships to

the extent practicable. To implement the treaty, Congress passed the Act

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships in 1980. The act exempted U.S.

Navy ships from its coverage. Later in 1987, Congress required the Navy to

comply with the discharge requirements of Annex V by December 31, 1993.

If unable to comply, the Navy was to report to Congress by December 31,

1991.

The Navy sent its compliance report to Congress in August 1993. As

required by law, the report listed (1) actions taken in response to the 1987

amendments; (2) impediments to meeting prohibitions on discharge of

plastics anywhere at sea, discharge requirements of solid waste near land

by December 31, 1993, and solid waste discharges in special areas; and

(3) ships that cannot achieve full compliance. This report recommended

changes to requirements. Specifically, the Navy requested Congress to

extend the compliance deadline to December 31, 1998; permit discharge of

nonplastic, nonfloating processed solid waste in special areas; and provide

1

Special areas now in place include the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the wider Caribbean region, and the

Antarctic Region.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

certain exemptions for submarines. In November 1993, Congress extended

the Navy’s compliance deadlines, but did not change the requirements.

Specifically, the solid waste compliance date for surface ships was

extended to December 31, 1998; the special area compliance date for

surface ships was extended to December 31, 2000; and the submarine

compliance date was extended to December 31, 2008.

In August 1994, we provided a chronology of Navy actions to develop solid

waste processing equipment.2

 Appendix I expands and updates this

chronology.

Results in Brief The Navy’s two prior plans for meeting requirements for discharge of

ships’ solid waste reflected the Navy’s belief that it could comply in part by

1998 or later, rather than in full by 1993. The prior planning did not appear

well-coordinated and did not include interim milestones for measuring

progress toward minimizing waste. The coordination for its expected

November 1996 plan has improved, but the planning still does not include

tasks or milestones to achieve near-term compliance for other than

plastics. At the time the Navy expects to submit its 1996 plan to Congress,

the Navy will have 4 years to develop and install new technologies to meet

requirements in special areas and 2 years for other areas.

After years of research, the Navy does not have an approach to meet

future legal requirements for the discharge of solid waste. Of about

$80 million appropriated through fiscal year 1994, about $52 million has

been spent on four types of equipment. Although the Navy has made some

limited progress, three of the four primary Navy equipment development

projects have been canceled, suspended, or reduced. Further, insufficient

consideration has been given to determining whether lessons can be

learned from non-Navy ships and individual Navy ships that report

progress in complying with discharge requirements.

Initial Plans Were Not

Accepted and Current

Planning Lacks

Specifics

The Navy’s 1993 plan assumed that it would be exempted from complying

with statutory requirements in certain areas, but Congress did not approve

exemptions for the Navy. As a consequence, the Navy lost valuable time

that could have been used to develop a compliance plan and now must

restart the process for all but plastics. Also, the Navy would benefit from

establishing detailed tasks and milestones for nonplastic waste and from

2

Pollution Prevention: Chronology of Navy Ship Waste Processing Equipment Development

(GAO/NSIAD-94-221FS, Aug. 18, 1994).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

further investigating lessons learned from other federal agencies and

commercial carriers.

Key Planning Assumptions

Were Not Accepted by

Congress

Since 1987, the Navy has put forth two separate planning proposals that

were ultimately not successful and is now in the process of developing a

third plan.

In 1987, Navy officials testified before Congress that the Navy was

preparing a plan to bring the Navy into compliance with future legal

requirements quickly. However, Navy planning at that time envisioned

compliance beyond 10 years. The Navy’s 1987 Shipboard Solid and Plastics

Waste Management Program Plan set two objectives. First, within 5 years,

the Navy planned to reduce overboard discharges of plastics by decreasing

the amount of plastics brought onboard and by segregating and storing

plastics onboard. Second, by 1998—5 years after the date called for in the

law—Navy-unique versions of shipboard solid waste processing equipment

would be developed and installed on Navy ships.

In 1993, the Navy developed its second compliance plan, with no interim

milestones for measuring progress toward minimizing waste. Although

Congress had required the Navy to report on any inabilities to comply with

discharge requirements by the end of 1991, it was not until August 1993

that the Navy reported to Congress that it could not meet the

December 31, 1993, deadline. The Navy’s revised plan stated that it would

comply with discharge requirements by December 31, 1998. However, this

was based on an assumption that Congress would revise requirements so

the Navy could discharge waste overboard as long as it did not float and

was not plastic.

In the 1993 amendments to the 1980 act, Congress extended the Navy’s

compliance deadline, but did not grant the Navy’s requested changes to

the Annex V requirements. Congress also mandated some milestones. The

Navy was to issue a request for proposals for the plastics processors by

October 1, 1994,3

 and to install the first production unit of the plastics

processor in a Navy ship by July 1, 1996. The requirement to install

processors for plastics increased from 25 percent of ships needing the

processor by March 1, 1997; to 50 percent by July 1, 1997; 75 percent by

July 1, 1998; and all ships needing the processor by December 31, 1998.

3

The request for proposal for the plastics processor was released on September 29, 1994.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

In addition, the 1993 amendments required the Navy to develop its third

plan by November 30, 1996. To oversee development of the plan, in

April 1994, the Navy established the Shipboard Solids and Plastics Waste

Steering Committee. The Committee is to facilitate preparation, agency

consultation, public participation, and submittal of the plan. Thus far, with

the assistance of a senior staff-level working group, the Committee has

developed a work plan and a milestone schedule for preparing the final

plan. Developing the plan is estimated to cost $7.5 million, principally for

salaries and studies. In one study, the Center for Naval Analyses is

exploring options other than Navy-unique versions of equipment.

In developing the plan, the Navy is consulting with other federal agencies

and the public to explore technologies and ideas. It will then group these

alternatives into various categories,4

 which will be subsequently analyzed.

The analyses are planned to be reviewed by federal agencies beginning in

late 1995 and by the public in early 1996.

For significant portions of the Navy’s compliance planning, neither

specific tasks nor associated milestones accomplishing those tasks have

been set. For example, the stated planning does not include a task to

identify whether current non-Navy ship and Navy ship practices can be

used to achieve near-term compliance with Annex V requirements.

Furthermore, the Navy plans no actions until 1996, after Congress

comments on its third plan. In addition, by 1996, when the Navy’s plan is

scheduled to be completed, the Navy will have about 4 years left to

develop and install new technologies to meet requirements in special areas

for surface ships, and only about 2 years in other areas.

For submarines, the compliance date is not until 2008, but the Navy now

has no tasks or milestones at all—for example, to describe current

practices, quantify discharges, and identify preliminary options. The Navy

does not expect to identify tasks or milestones until after it submits its

1996 plan to Congress. At present, according to the Navy, a technology has

not been identified that would allow submarines to comply with

requirements.

4

The Navy’s categories of alternatives will consist of onboard destruction of waste alternatives, storage

and retrograde waste alternatives, “environmentally benign” processed waste alternatives, and

combinations of these technologies.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

Operational Factors

Considered Unique by the

Navy

According to Navy officials, the Navy has several operational

characteristics that make it distinctive. As a result of these, the Navy

believes that technologies that work effectively for other federal agencies

and commercial carriers are not suitable for its ships. Characteristics cited

by the Navy include the following:

• Navy ships are unique because of their mission and special operating

constraints.

• The ships’ design and operational characteristics are different than most

commercial ships.

• The Navy’s mission requires that ships sustain operations at sea for long

periods, including replenishment of supplies.

• Navy ships have large crews that require handling and processing a large

volume of solid waste and potentially increase space constraints for waste

storage.

• Navy ships normally operate in harsh environments. Therefore, waste

processing equipment must be designed and constructed for sustained

performance in a combat environment.

• Since Navy personnel perform most of the repairs onboard, the equipment

must also require minimum maintenance.

Non-Navy Ships Have

Implemented Approaches

to Achieve Compliance

Non-Navy ships are using various approaches to meet discharge

requirements. These practices include incinerating plastics, compacting

solid waste, and establishing shipboard recycling programs. In contrast to

the Navy’s 3/20-day rule,5

 the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration prohibit discharging plastics anywhere at sea

and prohibit discharging solid waste near land and in special areas.

Although the Navy must maintain flexibility to meet its mission, our work

indicates that operational characteristics cited by the Navy are not in all

cases exclusive to the Navy. For example, the Coast Guard’s two polar

icebreaker cutters are at sea for 6 months at a time and, as well as other

Coast Guard cutters, contend with limited storage space. Also,

transoceanic cruise ships have trip segments exceeding 3 days, carry a

large number of passengers, and generate a large volume of waste.

Although the Navy’s characteristics may delay its full compliance with the

future requirements, we identified practices used by other federal agencies

and commercial carriers that could apply to the Navy’s efforts to comply

with discharge requirements.

5

Under its 3/20-day rule, the Navy is to retain food-contaminated plastics for the last 3 days at sea and

nonfood-contaminated plastics for at least the last 20 days.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

Compaction is a key element in other federal and commercial solid waste

management programs. For example, the Coast Guard plans to install 182

compactors by the end of fiscal year 1996 for solid waste onboard its

cutters. In addition, officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and commercial carriers said that compaction is important

in their processing of solid waste.

Non-Navy ships’ efforts to meet discharge requirements have been aided

by recycling programs. For example, some commercial carriers we visited

recycled plastics, glass, paper, aluminum, tin, and cardboard. Additionally,

the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration have agencywide recycling programs. The Coast Guard has

issued an instruction establishing its shore facilities and shipboard

recycling program. The Navy has an established shore-based recycling

program, but its shipboard recycling effort varies by operating units.

Limited Progress in

Achieving Program

Results

Two Navy ships reported progress in compliance, and headquarters’

initiatives have improved operations in some respects. Headquarters’

initiatives have included such operational improvements as supply system

changes to reduce the amount of wrapping materials brought onboard.

However, Navy headquarters had limited coordination with fleet operating

units. The headquarters primary focus has been on developing equipment

that met Navy specifications, but three of its four long-term projects have

been canceled, suspended, or reduced.

Two Navy Ships Reported

Progress in Achieving

Compliance

USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Saratoga officials told us that they

achieved compliance beyond the Navy’s 3/20-day rule by compacting,

storing, and offloading materials and by burning waste, including plastics.

Some Navy ships burned all solid waste, including medical and dental

waste. USS Theodore Roosevelt personnel said that they achieved

compliance with discharge requirements in part by storing compacted

materials aboard ships and offloading them at designated port reception

facilities.

The ships’ strategies were affected by Navy headquarters actions during

1993. The Navy decided in March 1993 that the requirement for trash

compactors no longer existed because the Navy decided that the pulper

and shredder could better meet its needs. At that time, the Navy

terminated its contract. In August 1993, the Navy directed fleet operating

units to stop incinerating plastics at sea. Navy headquarters officials said

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

that they discontinued burning plastics at sea due to the concerns of

environmental groups represented in the Keystone Dialogue Group.6

However, the Navy provided no alternative plan with its changes, so the

ships reverted to the Navy’s 3/20-day rule. In a 6-month deployment that

began in March 1993, the USS Theodore Roosevelt’s log showed no

reported plastics discharge prior to the Navy’s August 1993 message

prohibiting the incineration of plastics. Within days after the message, the

USS Theodore Roosevelt logged periodic discharges of plastics.

In discussing this issue, headquarters Navy officials said that the above

ship was using the Navy’s prototype pulper, which can process nonfood

waste. They said the ship may not have fully met discharge requirements

to the extent that nonfood waste may have been discharged by its pulper

near land or in special areas.

Navy Headquarters

Initiatives Resulted in

Operational Improvements

In 1989, the Navy established the Plastics Removal in Marine Environment

program to reduce the volume of plastic material taken onboard Navy

ships. This reduction has been accomplished by product substitution and

by minimizing plastic packaging and packing materials. For example, the

program led to the Navy canceling a contract for 1 million plastic laundry

bags, substituting paper cups for styrofoam cups, and introducing paper

trash bags. Such initiatives have resulted in the Navy avoiding the

acceptance of over 500,000 pounds per year of plastic items.

Also in 1989, the Navy established a policy that Navy surface ships follow

the 3/20-day rule to control plastics discharges at sea. Although an early

Navy evaluation indicated that implementing the rule would reduce the

service’s plastics discharge by 70 percent, no studies or analyses reflect

that this was accomplished.

Limited Navy Coordination

With Operating Units

Navy headquarters had limited coordination with operating units. For

example, some operating unit officials were unaware that the Navy

canceled the trash compactor contract. Further, Navy headquarters was

not involved in operating units’ procurement of commercial trash

compactors. During most of the period that Navy headquarters had

contracts to develop its compactor, Navy operating units purchased

commercial trash compactors. One operating unit we visited purchased

6

The dialogue group first met in October 1987 as the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Plastics under the

auspices of the Keystone Center. The Keystone Center is a neutral, nonprofit organization that

mediates and facilitates multiparty dialogues on environmental issues.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

120 commercial trash compactors in 1991, about 7 months before Navy

headquarters awarded a contract for 94 of its compactors.7

 Navy

headquarters was not involved in the operating unit’s procurement. During

the latter part of our work, we observed that coordination between Navy

headquarters and operating units had improved, especially in developing

the congressionally required report for 1996.

Focus Was on Developing

Equipment to Meet Navy

Specifications

Over the past 15 years, the Navy has conducted research to develop

shipboard solid waste processing equipment—a vertical trash compactor,

a solid waste pulper, a plastics waste processor, and a metal/glass

shredder. In 1979, the Navy’s first contract to design a trash compactor

was awarded. The trash compactor was to be designed to process

nonindustrial and nonhazardous waste into trash slugs that sink to the

bottom of the ocean. In 1985, the Navy began developing a solid waste

pulper. The pulper was designed to tear and grind food, paper, and

cardboard waste into a slurry of small particles that could be pumped

overboard and dispersed in the sea. In 1987, the Navy began developing a

plastics waste processor, which generally consists of a shredder and three

compress-melt units that shred, compress, and heat plastics into solid

plastic disks. The plastic disks are stored onboard ships for later landfill

disposal. In 1993, the Navy began developing a metal/glass shredder. The

shredder was initially designed to crush and cut metal and glass into

pieces that will sink in bags to the bottom of the sea. In 1994,

preproduction prototypes of the pulper, shredder, and plastics processor

were installed on the USS George Washington for evaluations, which are

still underway.

Through fiscal year 1994, the Navy had appropriations of $79.8 million to

research, develop, procure, and operate shipboard solid waste processing

equipment (see table 1).8

 The Navy spent $51.5 million from fiscal years

1979 through 1994, and, as of October 25, 1994, it had $28.3 million in fiscal

year 1993 and 1994 ship construction appropriations for future obligations,

varying by ship from 5 to 10 years.

7

The Navy subsequently canceled the headquarters’ acquisition of the trash compactors after deciding

that the requirement for a trash compactor no longer exists.

8

In our August 18, 1994, report, the Navy estimated it had spent $26 million through fiscal year 1993 on

equipment projects. Subsequently, the Navy increased this amount to $42.5 million to correct some

reported actual expenditures and to include 1993 ship construction appropriations for future

expenditures.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

Table 1: Funding by Appropriation and by Equipment (Fiscal Years 1979-94) 

Dollars in thousands

Type of equipment

Research and

development

Ship

construction

Operation &

maintenance

Other

procurement Total

Plastics processor $20,710 $28,300 $6,539 $301 $55,850

Solid waste pulper 14,970 0 0 0 14,970

Metal/glass shredder 4,848 0 0 0 4,848

Trash compactor 4,175 0 0 0 4,175

Total $44,703 $28,300 $6,539 $301 $79,843

Source: Naval Sea Systems Command.

Status of Equipment

Development

The equipment projects yielded mixed results, with only the plastics

processor proceeding at this time. The Navy reported $27.5 million spent

on the plastics processor thus far, and $28.3 million appropriated in fiscal

years 1993 and 1994. The Navy plans to install the production version of

the plastics processor in surface ships that need them by the end of 1998.

According to a Navy document, shipboard plastics amounts to only

6.5 percent of the solid waste generated by weight, but represents a major

environmental concern.

In March 1993, the Navy canceled the trash compactor contract because

other equipment could better meet the Navy’s needs. Thus far, the Navy

has spent $4.2 million for the trash compactor effort.9

The Navy had continued to develop the solid waste pulper and the

metal/glass shredder in anticipation that Congress would accept its

proposed modification of the regulations implementing Annex V. In the

Navy’s 1993 compliance report, the Navy recommended that Congress

allow it to discharge pulped or shredded waste, such as paper, glass, and

metal near land and in special areas. Congress did not adopt the Navy’s

proposal in the 1993 amendments, which were signed on November 30,

1993. In May 1994, the Navy suspended efforts to acquire and install the

pulper ($15 million spent), and it reduced the role of the metal/glass

shredder ($4.8 million spent). Shredders to be used as a part of the Navy’s

plastics processors were retained. Navy officials said that the Navy is

studying the shipboard solid waste discharges from pulpers and shredders

and that the results may be of use in setting future requirements.

9

The Navy and the contractor have not agreed on the trash compactor contract termination cost. The

contractor’s current net proposed settlement is $2.1 million.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
B-259190 

The Navy has several research projects underway for destroying or

treating shipboard waste that are not in its Shipboard Solid and Plastics

Waste Management Program. These include projects—such as plasma arc,

pulsed plasma arc, and molten salt destruction, and ram-jet

incineration—for destroying or treating shipboard waste. Through fiscal

year 1994, the Navy has spent $6 million on these projects, which are in the

early research phase.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy direct the Commander,

Naval Sea Systems Command, to ensure that headquarters’ planning

efforts include the (1) tasks and interim milestones to measure progress

toward long-term goals for nonplastic solid waste for both surface ships

and submarines and (2) necessary mechanisms to coordinate among all

involved activities, especially to pass on lessons learned from non-Navy

ships and individual Navy ships that report progress in complying with

discharge requirements.

As requested, we did not obtain official agency comments on this report.

However, we discussed our findings and recommendations with Navy

officials and have included their additional information and comments

where appropriate. Our objectives, scope, and methodology are discussed

in appendix II.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we

will make copies available to interested congressional committees, the

Secretary of the Navy, and the Office of Management and Budget. We will

also make copies available to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors are listed in appendix III.

Donna M. Heivilin, Director

Defense Management and NASA Issues

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix I 

Chronology of Events Occurring While Navy

Attempts to Comply With Requirements

The following chronology1 shows the Navy’s efforts to comply with a

treaty (the 1973/1978 International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships) and accompanying legislation (Act for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1980 and the 1987 and 1993

amendments to the act). The treaty sets forth agreements for controlling

worldwide marine pollution, and the subsequent legislation makes

portions of this treaty law.

Date Event

1970s The Navy begins research on the disposal of solid waste (food, paper, cardboard, metal,

glass, and plastics) from Navy ships.

1973 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is drafted to

control marine pollution worldwide.

1978 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is amended by a

protocol. The treaty and protocol exempt government-owned ships in noncommercial

service.

1973/78 Annex V of the treaty and protocol prohibits discharge of food, paper, cardboard, metal,

and glass waste near land; bans discharge of plastics anywhere at sea; and prohibits all

waste discharges, except food, in special areas. (A special area is a sea area where

more stringent limitations on discharge of solid waste are considered necessary; special

areas now in place include the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the wider Caribbean region,

and the Antarctic Region.)

1979 The Navy awards a contract for a trash compactor design study.

1980 The Navy awards a contract to develop and test one prototype trash compactor and two

preproduction compactors. The compactors are to convert solid waste into sinkable

trash slugs.

1980 To implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

Congress passes the Act for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The act exempts

U.S. Navy ships from its coverage.

1982 The contractor for the trash compactor is acquired by another contractor. Everything

dealing with the compactor is relocated to its plant where a new compactor design is

developed (on which the production compactor is based).

1985 The Navy begins developing a solid waste pulper to process food,

paper, and cardboard.

1987 The Navy begins developing a plastics waste processor that will shred, compress, and

heat plastics into a solid plastic disk that can be stored onboard ships for later landfill

disposal. The Navy plans to install the plastics processor in surface ships by the end of

1998.

1987 At a congressional hearing, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Shipbuilding and

Logistics indicates that the Navy will quickly comply with the United States commitment

to Annex V.

1987 The Navy participates in the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Plastics to develop an

approach to reduce plastics waste. Its membership is composed of Navy personnel,

congressional staff members, and representatives of environmental groups.

(continued)

1

This chronology expands and updates the one reported earlier in Pollution Prevention: Chronology of

Navy Ship Waste Processing Equipment Development (GAO/NSIAD-94-221FS, Aug. 18, 1994).

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix I 

Chronology of Events Occurring While Navy

Attempts to Comply With Requirements

Date Event

Nov. 1987 The Navy presents its Shipboard Solid and Plastics Waste Management Program Plan

and estimates that the program will cost $404 million. The plan calls for reducing plastics

discharges from Navy ships within 5 years. The long-term objective (11 years) is to

comply fully with Annex V by completing the development of a trash compactor, a

pulper, and a plastics processor for Navy ships.

Nov. 1987 The Navy encourages surface ships with incinerators to use them at sea for destroying

nonplastic solid waste, such as paper and cardboard.

Dec. 1987 The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (or the 1987 amendments) is

enacted. The act gives the Navy 5 years to comply with Annex V and requires it to report

to Congress in 3 years if it cannot meet the deadline.

June 1988 The Keystone Dialogue Group prepares a report for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy

that contains recommendations to meet the Navy’s solid waste management goals by

December 31, 1993. These include the Navy’s continued development of three

shipboard solid waste processing systems. They are (1) a trash compactor, (2) a

plastics processor, and (3) a pulper.

Aug. 1988 The Navy issues a survey report on how the plasma arc destruction process could

destroy or treat waste. The plasma arc process is a technology that converts most waste

into gases or fused slag. (Subsequently, research on other alternative

technologies—pulsed plasma arc, molten salt, and ram-jet incineration—is initiated.)

Dec. 1988 Annex V is entered into force for the United States. The Marine Plastic Pollution Research

and Control Act, which amended the provisions of the 1980 Act for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships, takes effect, implementing Annex V pollution control requirements

for Navy ships during peacetime operations.

Jan. 1989 Navy policy is to store food-contaminated plastics for the last 

3 days before entering port and to store nonfood-contaminated plastics for at least the

last 20 days.

Oct. 1989 The Navy establishes the Plastics Removal in Marine Environment program to reduce

plastic packaging and other plastic items that are used onboard Navy ships.

Aug. 1991 The Navy issues a shipboard pollution discharge restrictions guide (OPNAV Publication

P-45-111-91) to fleet commanders, Navy supply centers, naval training centers, and

others.

Aug. 1991 For its ships, the Naval Surface Force Atlantic purchases 120 trash compactors (20 large

compactors and 100 small compactors) that are specially designed for the Navy.

Compactors are to be delivered over the next 6 months, by February 28, 1992. (From

July 1985 through March 1994, numerous purchases of one to four compactors are also

made from the same manufacturer.)

Oct. 1991 The Navy creates the Ship Environmental Technology Task Force to coordinate the

development of technical solutions to emerging environmental compliance challenges

faced by Navy ships.

Dec. 1991 The Navy’s draft report on its inability to comply with requirements is forwarded to the

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment.

Mar. 1992 The Navy awards a $4.5-million contract for a prototype trash compactor and 

25 production trash compactors.

Sept. 1992 As part of the March 1992 contract, the Navy orders 23 more trash compactors at 

$3.3 million.

Jan. 1993 As part of the March 1992 contract, the Navy orders 45 more trash compactors at 

$6.7 million.

(continued)

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix I 

Chronology of Events Occurring While Navy

Attempts to Comply With Requirements

Date Event

Mar. 1993 The Navy cancels the March 1992 trash compactor contract after deciding that the

requirement for a trash compactor no longer exists. (To date, the Navy and the

contractor have not agreed on the contract termination cost. The contractor’s current net

proposed settlement is $2.1 million.)

Mar. 1993 The Chief of Naval Operations’ Executive Panel Task Force on the Environment briefing

states some concerns with overall environmental requirements and issues, including that

environmental requirements, research and development, and acquisition are not

integrated.

Apr. 1993 The Navy begins developing a metal/glass shredder to replace the trash compactor.

(Subsequently, Navy officials decide that this same shredder will be used with the

plastics processor to shred plastics waste.)

Apr. 1993 The Navy issues its revised Shipboard Solid and Plastics Waste Management Program

Plan and estimates that the program will cost $896 million (updated to $901 million in

September 1993). The Navy states that it will comply with discharge requirements after

December 31, 1998, eliminates the compacting requirement, adds the shredder

requirement, and retains the requirements for the pulper and plastics processor.

June 1993 The Navy publishes its compliance report for Congress. The report lists actions taken in

response to the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, impediments to full

compliance by December 31, 1993, and ships that cannot achieve full compliance. The

Navy recommends changes to some requirements.

Aug. 1993 The Chief of Naval Operations directs fleet commanders to terminate the incineration of

plastics at sea, citing beliefs that incineration presents safety and health hazards.

Aug. 1993 The Navy reports to Congress on Annex V compliance. Proposed amendments to the

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act would extend the Navy’s compliance

date regarding the discharge of plastics from December 31, 1993, to December 31,

1998; extend submarines’ compliance with discharge requirements to 2008; and adopt a

special area standard of “no floating waste, no plastic waste.”

Sept. 1993 The Naval Sea Systems Command Ship Environmental Technology Task Force report

revises shipboard environmental issues identified in the Task Force Report Document of

March 9, 1992. The report includes solid and plastics waste management.

Nov. 1993 The Navy issues its study addressing the incineration of plastics aboard ships. The study

concludes that 100-percent plastics waste yields higher levels of dioxins and furans than

lesser percentages, but does not address health exposure concerns.

Nov. 1993 In the 1993 amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the solid waste

compliance date for surface ships is extended to December 31, 1998; the special area

compliance date for surface ships is extended to December 31, 2000; and the solid

waste compliance date and special area discharge requirements for submarines is

extended to December 31, 2008. The 1993 amendments require the Navy to (1) issue a

request for proposals for the plastics processors by October 1, 1994; (2) install the first

production unit of the plastics processor in a Navy ship by July 1, 1996, 25 percent of

ships by March 1, 1997, 50 percent by July 1, 1997, 75 percent by July 1, 1998, and all

ships requiring a processor by December 31, 1998; and (3) develop a compliance plan

by November 30, 1996.

Dec. 1993 The Navy notifies fleet operating units that a violation of the 3/20-day rule for storing

plastic waste, except for discharges that are made because of ship safety, crew health,

or saving a life at sea, is a felony offense under federal law.

(continued)

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix I 

Chronology of Events Occurring While Navy

Attempts to Comply With Requirements

Date Event

Apr. 1994 The Navy establishes a steering committee to oversee development of the

congressionally required compliance plan and to ensure the plan is coordinated with

federal agencies and the public. The Navy estimates that developing the plan will cost

$7.5 million.

May 1994 The Navy starts at-sea evaluations of preproduction prototype pulper, shredder, and

plastics processor onboard the USS George Washington.

May 1994 The Navy suspends acquisition and installation of the pulper and shredder because they

will not enable Navy ships to meet requirements. The pulper and shredder were being

developed based on anticipated congressional approval of the Navy’s proposal to ease

requirements.

Aug. 1994 Fleet operating units continue to purchase commercial compactors and other

commercial solid waste processing equipment.

Aug. 1994 Navy waste washes up on an 8-mile stretch of a North Carolina beach. The waste is

traced to the USS Inchon, USS Trenton, and USS Gunston Hall. Waste attributed to Navy

ships includes cups (with ship logo), an oven cleaner can, a medicine bottle, an empty

paint can, and plastic general purpose cleaner bottles. This is the latest incident of the

Navy discharging solid waste from ships.

Sept. 1994 The Navy meets with the public to discuss new shipboard waste processing technology

and Navy compliance with requirements.

Sept. 1994 The Navy releases a “request for proposals” for purchasing plastics processors.

Oct. 1994 The Navy begins a study addressing shipboard solid waste discharges from its pulper

and shredder.

1994 The Navy is reconsidering its Shipboard Solid and Plastics Waste Management Program

and is scheduled to complete its compliance plan by the end of 1996.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

On January 13, 1994, we were asked to determine the results and cost of

the Navy’s Shipboard Solid and Plastics Waste Management Program to

date, identify and analyze future program plans and actions, and consider

opportunities to improve program implementation. On August 18, 1994, we

reported (GAO/NSIAD-94-221FS) on the results and cost of the Navy’s program

through fiscal year 1993. This report updates our chronology on the results

and cost of the program to date. It also assesses past and current planning

for the shipboard solid waste management program and program results

thus far.

To update the results and cost of the Navy’s Shipboard Solid and Plastics

Waste Management Program and to identify the Navy’s plan of action and

milestones to modify program strategy, we visited the Office of the Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security and the

Department of the Navy—Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for

Installations and Environment, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,

and the Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.; the Naval Surface

Warfare Center, Annapolis, Maryland; the Commander in Chief Atlantic

Fleet, the Commander Naval Air Force Atlantic, the Commander Naval

Surface Force Atlantic, and the Commander Naval Submarine Force

Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia; the Commander Naval Air Force Pacific and the

Commander Naval Surface Force Pacific, San Diego, California; and

selected Navy ships (the USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Saratoga, and USS

George Washington). At these locations, we reviewed documents and

interviewed officials. We used Navy cost data to calculate the costs

associated with shipboard solid waste processing equipment.

In considering the practices of others and available options, we visited the

Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of State; the

Department of Transportation (the Coast Guard), Washington, D.C.; the

Department of Commerce (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration), Rockville, Maryland; selected commercial carriers

(Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey; International Council of

Cruise Lines, Washington, D.C.; Florida Caribbean Cruise Association and

Royal Viking, Coral Gables, Florida; Costa Cruise Lines, Miami, Florida;

Princess Cruises and Crystal Cruises, Los Angeles, California); an

equipment manufacturer and an equipment distributor that represented

several manufacturers (Chicago Trashpacker Corporation, Marengo,

Illinois; and Big Stuff, Inc., Capitol Heights, Maryland, respectively). At

these locations, we obtained information on (1) solid waste disposal

practices of other federal agencies and commercial carriers and

(2) available options from public- and private-sector organizations.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We performed our review from January 1994 through September 1994 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

David Warren, Associate Director

Uldis Adamsons, Assistant Director

Marjorie Pratt, Evaluator

Norfolk Field Office Johnnie Phillips, Evaluator-in-Charge

Jeanett Reid, Evaluator

Vincent Truett, Evaluator

(709085) Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-38 Pollution Prevention
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100