Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices 6955

2288, Mobile, Alabama 36628–0001 or

by telephone at (334) 690–3018.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Raymond J. Fatz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health) OASA (I, L&E).

[FR Doc. 97–3773 Filed 2–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

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 nonhazardous biodegradable solid wastes,

(paper, cardboard and food), and nonhazardous 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:

• The ships for which full

compliance was not technologically

feasible;

• The technical and operational

impediments for achieving such

compliance as rapidly as

technologically feasible;

• A proposed alternative schedule for

achieving compliance as rapidly as

technologically possible; and

• 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:

• Store and retrograde (store and

return to shore for landbased processing

and/or disposal);

• Process and discharge at sea; and

• 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
6956 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices

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, nonfloating 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 fleetwide 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:

• Discharge of any solid waste is not

permitted within three nautical miles

(nm) of any shores;

• 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

• 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices 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 foodcontaminated 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)
6958 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices 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 ‘‘ineffect’’ 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).
6960 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Notices

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

Notice of Public Hearing for the

Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for Construction and

Operation of a Relocatable Over the

Horizon Radar, Puerto Rico

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as implemented by the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508),

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Public Law Number Nine, Section 4(c),

the Department of the Navy, has

prepared a Supplemental Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

(SDEIS) for the construction and

operation of a Relocatable Over the

Horizon Radar (ROTHR) system in

Puerto Rico.

The ROTHR, a wide area surveillance

high frequency (HF) radar system, is

proposed as an addition to the national

and local counter-narcotic strategy. The

ROTHR provides early detection of

illegal drug activity and would

complement existing ROTHR systems in

Virginia and Texas by providing

coverage of the northern portion of

South America.

A Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) addressing the impacts

of the proposed ROTHR system was

released to the public in July 1995.

Public comments received on the DEIS

included concerns over the loss of 100

acres of farmland at a candidate receiver

site in Lajas Valley. Based on these

concerns, the Department of the Navy

re-evaluated potential sites for the

ROTHR system, and determined that a

shortened receiver array could be

installed completely on federal property

at Fort Allen, a US Army installation

located about 4 miles south of the town

of Juana Diaz and 10 miles east of

Ponce. The SDEIA includes information

previously presented in the DEIS, as

well as new information on anticipated

impacts if the receiver were installed at

Fort Allen. The document has also been

expanded to address other issues raised

during the DEIS public review process.

The preferred receiver site is now

identified as Fort Allen. The

construction area would consist of a 100

acre site. The required buffer zone

would be completely contained within

the Fort boundary. The preferred

transmitter site continues to be the

Playa Grande site located on Navy

property on the Southwestern coast of

Vieques Island.

The Navy has forwarded copies of the

document to various federal and

Commonwealth agencies, local

municipalities and individuals.

Additionally, the SDEIS is available for

review at the following locations: (1)

Town Hall, Municipality of Vieques

Island; (2) Public Library, Municipality

of Lajas; (3) Mayor’s Office, Lajas; (4)

Environmental Quality Board, Hato Rey;

(5) Environmental Quality Board,

Regional Office at the Commercial

Center, Ponce; (6) Environmental

Quality Board, Mayaguez Regional

Office, Mayaguez; (7) City Hall,

Municipality of Juana Diaz; (8) Public

Library, City of Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico;

(9) City Hall, Municipality of Ponce;

(10) City Hall, Municipality of Santa

Isabel; (11) City Hall, Municipality of

Salinas; (12) Carnegie Public Library,

San Juan.

ADDRESSES: The Department of the Navy

will be participating in a public hearing

held by the Puerto Rico Environmental

Quality Board on March 15, 1997 at

10:00 AM at Calle Braschi # 50 in Juana

Diaz, Puerto Rico. All comments

received at the public hearing, as well

as written comments will be considered

in a Final Environmental Impact

Statement prepared by the Navy. All

written comments must be postmarked

no later than March 31, 1997 to become

part of the official record. Written

comments should be mailed to the

address noted below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional information concerning this

notice may be obtained by contacting

Ms. Linda Blount, (Code 2032LB),

Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, 1510 Gilbert

Street, Norfolk, VA 23511–2699,

telephone (757) 322–4892.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

D.E. Koenig,

LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–3784 Filed 2–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3819–FF–M