[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6955-6960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3783]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Notice of Record of Decision for the Disposal of U.S. Navy 
Shipboard Solid Waste from Surface Ships

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality 
regulations implementing NEPA procedures (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and 
Executive Order 12114 ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal 
Actions,'' the Department of the Navy announces its decision to 
implement its preferred alternative for the management of non-hazardous 
biodegradable solid wastes, (paper, cardboard and food), and non-
hazardous non-biodegradable solid wastes (metal and glass) from U.S. 
Navy surface ships. This decision makes a significant change to present 
waste disposal practices in the fleet. The Navy will equip surface 
ships the size of a frigate and larger (approximately 200 ships) with 
equipment to pulp paper, cardboard and food waste, and shred and bag 
all metal and glass prior to discharge overboard. The equipment, once 
installed, will be used to prepare material for discharge throughout 
the oceans and seas of the globe, including those special areas in 
effect pursuant to Regulation 5 of Annex V of the International 
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Pulped 
material will be discharged only outside of 3 nautical miles from land 
and shredded material will only be discharged outside of 12 nautical 
miles from land. This record of decision and the EIS on which it is 
based, do not apply to submarines. A separate solid waste management 
plan will be prepared for submarines at a future date.

Background

    The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 
required the Secretary of the Navy to submit to Congress, no later than 
November 30, 1996, a plan for Navy compliance with Regulation 5 of 
Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 
from Ships (MARPOL), which pertains to disposal of shipboard solid 
waste in ``special areas.'' The MARPOL Convention, formulated in 1973 
and amended in 1978, contains five annexes. Solid waste is addressed in 
Annex V, ``Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from 
Ships.'' MARPOL prohibits some discharges altogether, restricts some 
discharges to set distances from land, and establishes ``special 
areas'' within which additional discharge limitations apply, based on 
the oceanographic characteristics and ecological significance of those 
areas.
    Eight ``special areas'' have been designated by Annex V: the Baltic 
Sea, portions of the North Sea, the Antarctic Ocean, the Red Sea, the 
Black Sea, the Gulf area (including the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of 
Aden), the wider Caribbean (including the Gulf of Mexico), and the 
Mediterranean Sea. To date, only the first three are in effect. Areas 
come into effect following a positive assessment of the waste 
management capabilities of each area' littoral countries.
    The MARPOL Convention limitations on ocean discharges do not 
expressly apply to warships or naval auxiliaries. The Convention 
requires, however, that party states ensure their warships and 
auxiliaries operate consistent with the Convention so far as is 
``reasonable and practicable.''
    The United States became a party to MARPOL Annex V in 1997 with the 
enactment of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act 
(MPPRCA), which amended the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS). 
In MPPRCA, Congress did not adopt the Convention's ``reasonable and 
practicable'' requirement for U.S. public vessels, but instead 
affirmatively required full compliance by U.S. public vessels, 
including Navy vessels, with all Annex V requirements by 1994. In 1993, 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (DDA 94) amended APPS 
and, with respect to Navy ships, extended the 1994 deadline to the end 
of 1994 for the plastic discharge prohibition, and to the year 2000 for 
the special area requirements. Both MPPRCA and the DAA 94 allowed the 
Navy to petition Congress for relief from the legislatively imposed 
requirements of Annex V, if the Navy demonstrated that full compliance 
for U.S. Navy warships and auxiliaries was not technologically feasible 
while maintaining the necessary level of operational capability.
    The DAA 94 also provided that if the plan demonstrated that 
compliance by certain ships under certain conditions was not 
technologically feasible, Congress could modify the applicability of 
the special area requirements for Navy warships and auxiliaries.
    The DAA 94 required that the Navy submit a plan for special areas 
to Congress by November 30, 1996. If the Navy determined that 
compliance with the requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V was not 
technologically feasible for certain ships under certain conditions, 
the Navy must document:
    <bullet> The ships for which full compliance was not 
technologically feasible;
    <bullet> The technical and operational impediments for achieving 
such compliance as rapidly as technologically feasible;
    <bullet> A proposed alternative schedule for achieving compliance 
as rapidly as technologically possible; and
    <bullet> Such other information as the Secretary of the Navy 
considers relevant and appropriate.
    The development of a management plan for the disposal of shipboard 
solid waste necessarily addressed the design and management of 
warships. Navy warships have a substantially different mission from 
merchant marine vessels and cruise ships, which is reflected in warship 
design.
    Critical factors used to develop the Navy shipboard solid waste 
management plan include the composition, operation, and deployment of 
the U.S. Navy fleet, waste generation rates and characteristics, 
available processing technologies and current Navy solid waste 
management practices. Using this basic information, the Navy 
identified, in addition to source reduction, three potential categories 
of alternatives for managing shipboard solid waste:
    <bullet> Store and retrograde (store and return to shore for 
landbased processing and/or disposal);
    <bullet> Process and discharge at sea; and
    <bullet> Destroy on board.
    In each of these alternatives food waste would be comminuted 
(ground up) and discharged, and plastic waste would be processed using 
Navy developed plastic waste processors (currently being installed on 
most Navy ships). The treated plastic will be stored and returned to 
shore.
    The potential environmental effects of the Navy's solid waste 
management plan were analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS). Publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was 
published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1995. The NOI broadly 
described the range of alternatives to be considered and analyses to be 
conducted for the EIS and also announced the time and place for two 
public scoping meetings. These

[[Page 6956]]

meetings were held in Washington, DC and San Francisco, California on 
October 24, 1995 and October 26, 1995 respectively. Notice of the 
availability of a Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 
April 29, 1996. 45-day public review period ended on June 14, 1996. 
Public hearings were held in Washington, DC and San Francisco, 
California on May 28, 1996 and May 30, 1996, respectively.
    The Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
regulations in 40 CFR, parts 1500-1508, Navy NEPA regulations in 32 CFR 
part 775, Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12114 ``Environmental 
Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,'' Secretary of the Navy 
Instruction 5090.6 and the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 
5090.1B ``Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual.''
    The notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on September 6, 1996. A 30-day public review period 
for the Final EIS ended on October 6, 1996. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 amended section 3(c) of the Act 
to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1902) to allow 
certain Navy ships, as designated by the Secretary of the Navy, to 
discharge into MARPOL special areas non-plastic, non-floating garbage 
that has been pulped and shredded. On November 25, 1996, Secretary of 
the Navy John H. Dalton signed a determination specifying which ship 
types, due to military design, construction, manning, or operating 
requirements, cannot fully comply with the special area requirements of 
Regulation 5 of Annex V of MARPOL.

Current Situation

    The Navy fleet, consisting of approximately 350 vessels (including 
submarines) is deployed globally, operating under constantly variable 
conditions and circumstances. Variations include the number of ships 
and length of deployment. The amount of shipboard solid waste generated 
is proportional to the size of the operation and its duration.
    Most of the designated special areas are strategically important to 
the United States. In recent years the Navy has operated extensively in 
the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and in the 
Caribbean region. These special areas present more significant solid 
waste management difficulties for the Navy than those that are 
currently in effect in the Baltic and North Seas. The Navy has 
determined that underway periods of one week or longer makes it 
impractical for combatant ships to comply with the ``zero discharge'' 
requirement (i.e., retain all waste on board). Aircraft carriers face 
the greatest challenge because they have the longest underway periods 
between port visits and the largest crews.
    Shipboard solid waste generation rates are dependent on crew size. 
The shipboard solid waste generation rate for Navy ships is 1.36 
kilograms (2.99 pounds) per crew member per day. Based on this daily 
rate, solid waste generated onboard an aircraft carrier with a crew of 
6,280 would be 8,450 kg/day (18,590 lbs/day). A smaller frigate class 
ship with a crew size of 220 would generate approximately 300 kg/day 
(660 lbs/day).
    Of the solid waste stream, food waste poses the least significant 
disposal problem, as these discharges are readily accommodated by Navy 
shops using comminuters (grinders). For plastic waste, the Navy has 
actively pursued elimination for more than a decade through operations 
changes, technology development, supply system changes (source 
reduction), and environmental education. Through these efforts, the 
Navy has reduced the discharge of plastics solid waste by approximately 
70 percent. Plastic waste processors, along with new management 
practices, will eliminate plastic waste discharge at sea by surface 
combatants by the end of 1998.

Alternatives Considered

    The Navy considered the no action alternative, process and 
discharge alternative, store and retrograde alternative, and the on-
board destruction alternative and, for each alternative the available 
technologies for on-board solid waste management. The analysis made it 
clear that neither a single alternative nor a single individual 
technology was appropriate for fleet-wide implementation. The 
alternatives and technologies were evaluated using nine criteria: 
safety/health, operational impacts, environmental consequences, cost, 
habitability and quality of life aboard ship, shipboard requirements, 
physical ship impacts (space, other ship impacts), technical maturity 
(equipment), and compliance with APPS. Technologies and equipment were 
assessed in the light of reliability, maintainability, and the 
capability to operate under extreme adverse conditions; mission 
readiness; the ability to sustain battle damage and continue to 
function, issues related to stability, which concern, in part, the 
appropriate arrangement of space and weight in the vessel overall, and 
existing design criteria for weapons systems, propulsion plants, 
machinery, auxiliary equipment, work spaces, and living areas.

No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, (the alternative in use for 
existing naval operations), the Navy would implement its plan to 
install plastic waste processors on approximately 200 ships by 1998 and 
implement store and retrograde procedures for plastics on ships unable 
to accommodate the plastic waste processors. All other solid waste 
would be managed according to the following discharge restrictions:
    <bullet> Discharge of any solid waste is not permitted within three 
nautical miles (nm) of any shores;
    <bullet> Discharge of pulped food waste is permitted at greater 
than 3 nm except in special areas and off foreign country shores where 
the restriction is 12 nm; and
    <bullet> Discharge of other non-plastic solid waste is restricted 
to greater than 25 nm.

Process and Discharge Alternative

    This alternative envisions processing (i.e., pulp and/or shred) 
biodegradable wastes (paper, cardboard, food) and non-biodegradable 
wastes (metal and glass) prior to discharge, thereby eliminating 
floating debris.

Store and Retrograde Alternative

    This alternative consists of storage of all solid waste on board 
while operating in special areas. The stored material is held until it 
can be off-loaded for land disposal. Given the amount of waste 
generated and the limited on-board storage space available, it would be 
necessary to process the waste on the generating ship to reduce volume 
or encapsulate food-contaminated waste for odor control and sanitation 
purposes.

On-Board Destruction Alternative

    On-board destruction presents a range of technological solutions 
for consideration, some of which are not presently mature. Currently 
available options are in the form of incineration, and would combine 
the shredding and combustion of ship cardboard, paper, metal, and 
glass. Under this alternative, paper and cardboard would be 
incinerated. Metal and glass wastes would be shredded prior to 
combustion, which would reduce the volume of the materials to be 
burned, but presently available methods of combustion would not further 
reduce the quantity of these materials. These materials, along with the 
ash and slag generated from

[[Page 6957]]

combustion of combustible materials would require storage aboard ship 
for disposal on shore or disposal at sea.

Alternatives Analysis

    Analysis of the various waste management alternatives in the light 
of the nine criteria led the Navy to reach the following conclusions. 
The no action alternative, (continuation of existing solid waste 
management practices), while the least expensive alternative, would not 
allow the Navy to comply with MARPOL and APPS, as amended by MPPRCA and 
DAA 94. Moreover, the no action alternative does not improve solid 
waste management for special areas.
    The storage and retrograde alternative would adversely affect the 
quality of life of the ship's crew. Living and recreational space is 
the only space in existing ships that could be converted into waste 
storage areas without eliminating combat essential equipment. The cost 
of this alternative would be significant, ranging from $3.5 million for 
an auxiliary ship to over $13 million for an aircraft carrier. The cost 
of equipment and its installation; the requirement for significantly 
more shipboard storage space compared to other alternatives under 
consideration; the need for pier side off-loading and storage 
facilities; the impact on support ships, including costs to modify 
existing ships to handle wastes; and the increased time for underway 
replenishment, with increased risk to ships, helicopters and crew all 
mitigate against this alternative. Because of these factors, the 
storage and retrograde alternative was rejected for the larger Navy 
fleet units.
    The on-board destruction or incineration alternative was also 
rejected. While this alternative would allow APPS compliance, it is the 
most expensive alternative in terms of space requirements and cost. 
Costs for the least expensive incinerator would range from $2.6 million 
per ship for a cruiser to over $29 million for an aircraft carrier. 
Retrofitting the Navy fleet would also disrupt a large amount of space 
on every ship and cause severe and unacceptable impact on the ships 
primary mission functions. This alternative includes the following 
costly requirements: trained operating staff, skilled maintenance 
staff, space for incineration equipment and support systems aboard 
ship, and storage space for ash/metal/glass residue to be retrograded. 
Presently available equipment also presents concerns for fire control.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.2), 
require the identification of the ``environmentally preferred 
alternative'' for major federal actions. None of the alternatives 
considered can be clearly identified as the ``environmentally preferred 
alternative.'' The process and discharge and no action alternatives 
would result in the discharge of solid waste into the oceans of the 
world, while the destroy on board (incineration) alternative could 
result in impacts to air, surface waters, and land (due to ash disposal 
ashore). The store and retrograde alternative would affect land 
resources or the air as the waste would be disposed of in landfills or 
incinerated in land-based facilities. The process and discharge 
alternative is preferred over the other alternatives for the human 
shipboard environment, as it reduces possible odors, crowding and 
elimination of the ship's crew spaces. The processing of solid wastes 
prior to ocean discharge eliminates floating debris, which is a hazard 
to marine life, as well as being aesthetically undesirable.

Proposed Action

    The preferred alternative (proposed action) for shipboard solid 
waste management for surface ships is a combination of the process and 
discharge alternative and the storage and retrograde alternative. Under 
the preferred alternative, the Navy will install pulpers and shredders 
on all vessels the size of frigates or larger (approximately 200 
ships). These include: Frigates, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious 
helicopter assault ships, aircraft carriers, fleet oilers and supply 
ships, amphibious landing transport and docking ships; and fleet 
command and control ships.
    The Navy will retain and retrograde waste on smaller ships and 
patrol craft (approximately 55 ships) when operating within MARPOL 
special areas. These smaller ships include: Mine countermeasure and 
mine hunting ships; rescue, salvage and towing ships; and coastal 
patrol boats, and landing craft that have a limited range and mission 
duration.
    The installation of the pulpers and shredders will have little 
effect on crew, due to the small footprint and ease of operation. Minor 
ship alternations will be necessary on Navy vessels and no health and 
safety impacts are anticipated. With respect to crew morale, this 
alternative is considered the best among alternatives studied because 
odor impacts from storing food-contaminated wastes would be 
substantially reduced or eliminated, prompt removal of all solid wastes 
would make the storage of wastes in inappropriate spaces unnecessary, 
personal crew space would not be affected on any class of Navy ship, 
and only minimal impacts to crew shared space will occur.
    This alternative will enhance mission readiness for Navy ships 
because waste disposal can proceed during operations, including flight 
operations. Flight decks, hangars, and other operational space will not 
be cluttered with the temporary storage of solid waste. This would also 
enhance safety aboard ship, as access to critical equipment would not 
be impeded and ship's personnel would not have to repeatedly move 
containers of garbage, a difficult operation, especially during rainy 
weather and/or rough seas. The cost impacts of this alternative are 
significantly lower, at approximately $340 million for the existing 
Navy surface fleet, than any other action alternative investigated.
    Food waste will continue to be ground up and discharged at sea 
while paper and cardboard will be processed by a pulper with discharge 
from the pulper occurring at least three nautical miles from shore. A 
shredder will be used to process metal and glass waste. The processed 
metal and glass will be placed in burlap bags and discharged into the 
sea. This discharge will occur at least 12 nautical miles from shore.

Environmental Impacts

    The decision to implement the process and discharge alternative 
will result in most Navy ships processing (i.e., pulp and/or shred) 
wastes including paper, cardboard, metal, glass and food waste and 
discharging the products of the processing. The effects of the process 
and discharge alternative on the oceans of the world and especially 
MARPOL special areas were assessed by the Navy in consultation with a 
number of experts and studies. The assessment of impacts focused on the 
processes that are most important to determine the fate and effect of 
the two waste streams and compared these to the range of receiving 
environment conditions likely to be affected by the discharges.
    The Navy considered the potential direct adverse effects of waste 
disposal of pulped paper and cardboard on the ocean environment to 
include impacts to water column and benthic organisms, growth rate, 
reproduction and feeding inhibition, oxygen depletion, and beach 
litter. The potential adverse effects of waste disposal of the shredded 
metal and glass (discharged in burlap bags)

[[Page 6958]]

considered were impacts to benthic organisms' smothering, ingestion and 
oxygen uptake, and washing ashore as beach litter. The implementation 
of the process and discharge alternative will have no direct adverse 
impacts ashore.

Paper and Cardboard

    The pulped paper/cardboard waste stream will consist primarily of 
white paper and cardboard mixed with sea water. The material is mainly 
composed of organic carbon as cellulose, with very little nitrogen or 
phosphorus. Degradation rates for the pulped paper/cardboard could 
vary, depending on the water temperature, from approximately 0.01 
percent to 0.6 percent per day. Analysis of the material indicates that 
it does not contain significant amounts of toxic chemicals.The rate of 
discharge of the pulped paper/cardboard waste will be approximately 100 
to 3,200 kilograms (220 to 7,040 lbs) per ship per day depending on 
vessel size.
    The fate analysis for the pulped paper and cardboard waste stream 
considered both water column and sea floor processes under a range of 
conditions representative of special areas as well as the world's ocean 
environments. The most critical factor in the fate analysis is the wake 
dilution rate that occurs in the first 15 to 20 minutes after discharge 
of the pulped waste stream. Numerical modeling results for both the 
wake and ambient mixing provided estimates of the lowest dilution of 
the waste stream to be 1:60,000 (a 1:60,000 dilution rate means, for 
example, one gallon of pulped paper/cardboard would be diluted with 
60,000 gallons of sea water) for an aircraft carrier operating at ten 
knots. The dilution factor greatly exceeds all other background 
factors, such as currents and wind mixing, that might also contribute 
to dilution of the material.
    Wake dilution is independent of discharge location, (i.e., the 
dilution rate would be the same in all special areas and the world's 
oceans). Also independent of discharge location is the settlement rate 
of the majority of the material due to the fact that the specific 
gravity (weight) of the average-sized particle would be so much greater 
than that encountered in ocean water. About 95 percent of the material 
discharged would be deposited on the sea floor.
    A series of bioassay were conducted by the Navy for a wide range of 
organisms from bacteria to small fish to determine whether the pulped 
paper/cardboard mixture would be toxic to water column and/or bottom 
dwelling organisms and if so, at what concentration and duration. Test 
results showed no biological effects in any organisms tested at 
concentration levels expected in the water column with wake dilution. 
Further, no biological effects were observed in two benthic organisms 
tested at concentration levels that would be expected in the sediments 
after receiving the pulped paper/cardboard discharge from 1000 ship 
discharges over the same location.
    The Navy investigated potential effects of pulped paper/cardboard 
discharge on coral reefs and other similar benthic filter-feeding 
organisms and sea grasses found in the wider Caribbean, the 
Mediterranean, and Red Seas, and the Gulf region. Discharges of pulped 
paper/cardboard will introduce additional suspended material into the 
water column and increase sedimentation rates. Possible effects of 
concern to commenters included reduction in light levels due to 
increased suspended particle loading, the potential for smothering and 
interference with filter feeding/respiration, and direct toxicity to 
coral polyps due to contaminants associated with paper particulate.
    None of the laboratory tests or bioassay showed significant toxic 
effects with the pulped paper/cardboard at the concentrations 
anticipated to occur in the individual ships' wakes. In addition, 
detailed chemical analysis of the pulped waste stream indicates that it 
is composed nearly all of non-toxic organic materials. Direct tests on 
sardines and two zooplankton species representative of the Black, 
North, an Baltic Seas, and Antarctica revealed no effects from the 
anticipated exposure levels from pulped paper/cardboard discharges.

Metal and Glass

    After shredding, the metal and glass fragments will be bagged in 
biodegradable burlap bags and manually discharged over the side of the 
ship. The number of bags discharged overtime and the distribution of 
discharge period(s) throughout the day will vary from ship to ship. The 
primary components of the shredded metal and glass waste stream would 
be tin-coated steel cans (71 percent by weight) and glass (13 percent 
by weight). The elemental constituents of this waste material are 
similar to those occurring naturally in marine environments. Of these, 
only iron would be significantly enhanced in the waste stream relative 
to concentrations found in typical marine environments. It is expected 
that the iron and tin in these metal cans would completely corrode in 
2.5 to 10 years. The burlap bags would degrade over a period of months. 
The rate of degradation of the shredded glass is slow, with most of the 
material being incorporated into the sea floor rather than dissolving 
in the water column.
    The analysis of the fate and effects of shredded metal and glass 
addressed both water column and sea floor processes. Based on tests, 
biological effects expected only within the bag or near the bag 
surface. The discharge of shredded metal/glass will produce little 
opportunity for immediate dispersion of the material, since the metal/
glass will be contained in burlap bags that will not trap air. During 
the time the bag is moving through the water column, organisms in the 
water column will not be sufficiently exposed to sustain an effect.
    Since the shredded waste will reach the bottom rapidly, most of the 
processes that would influence the fate and effects of the shredded 
metal/glass waste would occur at or near the sediment/water interface. 
Once deposited on the bottom, any material that would cause effects 
would be quickly diluted by the surrounding waters and have no 
significant impacts on organisms on the sea floor.
    The Navy also considered the effects of the discharge of the bagged 
shredded metal/glass on coral reefs and other similar sensitive 
organisms. Issues of concern included the potential for a bag landing 
on a coral reef and the smothering of the reef beneath the bags. With 
regard to the potential for a bag landing on a coral reef, it is noted 
that, to avoid navigational hazards, Navy ships avoid operating in 
shallow water where most coral reefs occur. Additionally, because of 
discharge restrictions, the actual discharge of bagged metal/glass 
would occur outside the 12 nm limit. Transport of the bags toward shore 
would be minimal. Studies have shown that a bag discharged at the 12 nm 
limit would reach the sea floor only 0.11 nm closer to shore than the 
drop point. Impacts to coral reefs and other sensitive habitats would 
only occur where the discharge occurred directly over or within very 
close proximity to a reef.
    Effects would not be found beyond the immediate area of the bag 
itself. Where bags of shredded metal/glass settle on a coral reef or 
sea grass community, the scale of the impact would be confined to the 
frontal area of the bag deposited (approximately 2,000 sq.cm. or 310 
sq.in.). Consequently, only the coral underlying the bag would be 
affected by the settlement of the bag.

Endangered Species

    The Navy also investigated the potential exposure and effects of 
solid waste discharges on threatened and endangered species found in 
all the

[[Page 6959]]

world's oceans, with emphasis on those found within the MARPOL special 
areas. Both waste discharges were subjected to toxicity testing on a 
wide range of organisms. None of the organisms showed effects of the 
pulped paper/cardboard at the concentrations expected to occur in the 
environment. As for the potential for ingestion of the pulped paper/
cardboard by threatened and endangered species, studies indicated that 
the pulped waste stream is not considered an ingestion problem because 
of the low concentrations found in the discharge wake and the size of 
the species of concern. For metal and glass discharges, species 
evaluated typically would not be vulnerable because there would be no 
overlap between the species' habitat and the locations at which the 
proposed discharges would occur, or the species feeding habits are not 
compatible with ingesting large material from the sea floor.
    Because the bags would sink very rapidly, species that feed on the 
surface or in the water column would not have the opportunity to ingest 
the material. Another consideration is that the discharges would 
generally occur in waters deeper than 200 meters (656 feet) and most of 
the species evaluated feed in near shore or coastal shallow water. Thus 
the likelihood of shredder bags landing in typical bottom feeding 
habitats is very small. Finally, the likelihood of encountering a bag 
on the sea floor would be minimal, considering the low percentage of 
sea floor that would be covered by bags, even with cumulative 
discharges.
    Based on the analyses conducted, the Navy has concluded that the 
proposed discharges would have a very low potential to cause any effect 
on a protected species, or modification of a critical habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

    Cumulative environmental impacts were considered through the 
analysis of multi-ship operational scenarios. Navy ships often operate 
in groups and these groups may operate in MARPOL special areas. The 
results of the analysis for the pulped waste stream indicated that 
pulped paper/cardboard discharges from all Navy ships operating within 
special areas would be insignificant.
    For the shredded metal/glass waste stream, the estimated annual 
mass loading for the special areas from current Navy shipboard 
operations would range from 5.8 metric tons in the Baltic Sea to 895 
metric tons in the Mediterranean.

Mitigation

    Several policy, operational, and design measures will avoid or 
minimize impacts to the environmental: (1) The Navy will discharge 
pulped paper and cardboard only when a ship is making way, thereby 
ensuring thorough mixing and dispersion of the discharge in the ship's 
wake; (2) Packaging of the shredded metal/glass prior to disposal will 
prevent scattering of metal and glass fragments in the water column 
that might be accidentally ingested by marine fish and animals; (3) 
Selection of a packaging material for shredded metal and glass that is 
durable (resistant to tearing), sinkable (does not contain air 
pockets), and biodegradable will ensure that the bag sinks rapidly to 
the sea floor and allows natural deterioration and assimilation of the 
materials; and (4) Pulped paper and cardboard will be discharged at 
distances greater than 3 nm from shore and shredded metal and glass 
will be discharged at distances greater than 12 nm from shore.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    Two federal agencies and one special interest group provided 
comments on the Final EIS. One federal agency (Department of the Army) 
comments were limited to corrections in metric conversions noted in the 
Final EIS. Corrections, where appropriate, have been made.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that the 
Navy continue its current practice of zero discharge of solid wastes in 
the Antarctic region and the Baltic Sea. Additionally, EPA commented on 
the Final EIS discussion on naval operations noting that the Antarctic 
was not listed as an ``in effect'' special area in this discussion and 
also suggested clarification on the waste discharge distance (from 
land) requirement. EPA also suggested that the Navy's preferred 
alternative may not be consistent with the ``Antarctic Science, Tourism 
and Conservation Act'' (ASTCA) of 1996 or Annex IV to the Protocol on 
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (PEPAT). Finally, the 
EPA requested the Navy to reconsider the previous EPA comments 
concerning waste discharge monitoring, discharge restrictions near 
sensitive ecosystems, continue the search for a waste management system 
that would allow full compliance with MARPOL, and develop an 
environmentally sound ship for the 21st century.
    In response to these EPA comments, the Navy notes that it is 
currently in compliance with MARPOL in the ``in-effect'' special areas 
(Antarctic region and the Baltic and North Seas). This ``compliance'' 
is due to the very limited nature of U.S. Navy operations in those 
areas. However, this ``compliance'' also results in significant impacts 
to the shipboard environment of Navy vessels. Chapter 4.1.1 of the EIS 
documents the impacts of continuing current shipboard waste management 
practices on the health, welfare, and morale of Navy sailors and on the 
mission readiness, safety, and logistical operations of Navy vessels. 
These effects on sailors and ships operating in any ocean of the world 
are unacceptable, and the preferred alternative has been developed in 
response to these and other related concerns. Also, the nature of U.S. 
Navy operations may change in the existing in-effect special areas with 
changing geo-political conditions, and the Navy must be prepared to 
respond quickly and efficiently to such world events.
    The discussion in the Final EIS on naval operations (Sec. 2.1.1) 
did not include the Antarctic region because it is not an area where 
naval operations are routinely conducted. Also the comment concerning 
the 25 mile discharge distance restriction (Sec. 4.1) applies to the no 
action alternative or what is currently practiced today by Navy 
vessels. Under the proposed action, in the world's oceans, including 
special areas, pulped paper and cardboard would be discharged at 
distances greater than 3 nm from shore and shredded metal and glass 
would be discharged in burlap bags at distances greater than 12 nm from 
shore.
    The navy has reviewed the Act and Treaty cited by EPA. Under the 
ASTCS, ``* * * discharges of any wastes in Antarctica would be 
prohibited except as otherwise authorized by the Act to Prevent 
Pollution from Ships (APPS).'' Congress has modified APPS to permit the 
discharge of solid wastes in accordance with the proposed action. With 
regard to Annex IV of PEPAT, Article 11 of this Treaty indicates that 
the Annex does not apply to warships or naval auxiliaries. 
Notwithstanding these exemptions, the Navy is keenly aware of the 
delicate and sensitive environment of the Antarctic region. Also, 
routine naval operations are infrequent in this region due to its 
remote location.
    With respect to long-term monitoring of waste discharge plumes, the 
Navy has reconsidered EPA's comments on the Draft EIS and still feels 
that such monitoring is both unnecessary and impractical for the 
reasons stated in the FInal EIS (p. 10-6 response to comments).

[[Page 6960]]

    With respect to discharges near sensitive ecosystems, the Navy will 
not discharge pulped paper/cardboard within 3 nm of land nor discharge 
shredded metals/glass within 12 nm of land. This naval operational 
restriction, combined with the fact that smaller, coastal vessels will 
store and retrograde waste (the process and discharge alternative 
applies to the larger oceangoing vessels the size of frigates and 
above) should offer ample protection to sensitive ecosystems.
    With respect to future waste management systems, the Navy has 
established the goal of having environmentally sound ships of the 21st 
century that will be able to minimize waste generation and treat or 
destroy unavoidable waste on board. The Navy is investigating 
integrated waste processing systems that would collect and treat or 
destroy all shipboard wastes, both liquid and solid. Although the Navy 
is pursuing this research and development (R&D), it foresees no 
advanced waste destruction technology being ready for shipboard use in 
the next decade. In the interim, the Navy will continue to monitor and 
evaluate technology developments and initiate R&D programs where 
candidate technologies look promising for future ships.
    The special interest group comments, from a representative of a 
shipboard waste (compaction) processing machine company, provided 
corrected information on the output characteristics of their processed 
wastes and the use of such equipment on ships of other world navies.
    The Navy appreciates this revised information. However, an 
analysis, based on this new information, did not alter the findings of 
the Final EIS.

Conclusion

    After comprehensive evaluation of the proposed impacts and review 
of all comments, the Navy has concluded that its preferred alternative 
provides for protection of the environment, preserves the Navy's 
operational flexibility and the quality of life of shipboard personnel 
and can be implemented at a reasonable cost.
    Accordingly, the Navy will install pulpers and shredders on all 
vessels the size of frigates and larger, and use the equipment 
worldwide, not just in MARPOL special areas. For the Navy's smaller, 
coastal vessels that have mission durations of only a few days, the 
Navy will implement a store and retrograde policy for solid waste 
management (except food wastes) for these ships will operating in 
MARPOL special areas.
    Questions regarding the Final EIS prepared for this action may be 
directed to Mr. Robert Ostermueller, Head, Environmental Planning, 
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 10 Industrial 
Highway, Lester, PA 19113, telephone (610) 595-0759, fax (610) 595-
0778.

    Dated: January 31, 1997.
Elsie L. Munsell,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment & Safety).
[FR Doc. 97-3783 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M