The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

In 1987, the U.S. government ratified Annex V (Garbage) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) and its 1978 Protocol, known jointly as MARPOL 73/78. That same year, the U.S. Congress enacted the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) (P.L. 100-220) to implement the agreement domestically. Both the treaty and the law address the need to curtail the debris littering oceans and beaches, particularly by restricting the age-old practice of tossing garbage overboard from vessels. The regulated garbage includes solid wastes (other than sewage) generated during normal operations at sea.

While the congressional action denotes official U.S. acceptance of MARPOL Annex V, additional work is required to realize the related goals and objectives. A national implementation plan is needed to convert Annex V and the domestic legislation into a tangible regime through which the United States can encourage, monitor, report, and enforce compliance with the new standards. In this way, the work of diplomats and legislators can be translated into the duties of agencies, government personnel, business persons, educators, advocates, and private citizens. The U.S. implementation strategy must put into action the words of Annex V within the context of the international law of the sea, which places some constraints on unilateral action but also offers many opportunities for use and study of the oceans, control of pollution, and settling of disputes.

No single federal agency is responsible for the comprehensive implementation of Annex V in the United States. Instead, the duties are distributed among the

Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and, indirectly, the Maritime Administration and others).¹ In addition, the Congress instructed the Navy to comply with the MPPRCA. In examining the issues affecting the implementation of Annex V, these agencies identified the lack of strategic planning and organization as a major obstacle. These agencies therefore requested that the National Research Council (NRC) undertake an assessment of U.S. activities and evaluate how well Annex V implementation was progressing. Accordingly, the NRC Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems assembled a committee under the auspices of the Marine Board to conduct a comprehensive assessment of U.S. implementation of Annex V.

Committee members were selected for their expertise and to achieve balanced experiences and viewpoints. (Biographical information is presented in Appendix A.) The principle guiding the constitution of the committee and its work, consistent with NRC policy, was not to exclude any bias that might accompany expertise vital to the study, but to seek balance and fair treatment. The resulting committee membership balanced the technical, scientific, and legal professional disciplines and encompassed the diverse commercial and recreational communities that must comply with Annex V.

The committee sought the assistance of the federal agencies that have duties and undertake activities in conjunction with the national Annex V implementation effort. As a result, in addition to the aforementioned project sponsors, contact was maintained with the Marine Mammal Commission, the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, the Department of the Interior's National Park Service and Minerals Management Service, and the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The task of the Committee on Shipborne Wastes was to focus on the preparations the federal government must make after accepting an international standard for environmental protection. The objective was to devise a strategy to help promote and compel compliance with Annex V by surface vessels in all U.S. maritime sectors² and promote the elimination of ocean pollution from garbage.

Although the emphasis was on vessel garbage,³ in some respects this problem could not be separated from the problem of marine debris in general, as noted in several sections of this report (such as those relating to ecological effects). Thus, elements of the committee's analysis and recommendations are applicable to the broader problem of marine debris as well as the specific Objective of the study.

The committee made no recommendations going beyond Annex V or the International Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines for implementation, even when there were compelling arguments for doing so. For example, several committee members argued that vessel operators and crews should halt all littering of the oceans, even that which is permitted by Annex V. Despite the appeal of a total ban,⁴ the committee adhered to the limits of Annex V, which imposes a total discharge prohibition only in certain sea areas, and the IMO implementation guidelines, which recommend discharging garbage in port reception facilities "whenever practicable."

The committee's study encompassed all aspects of the U.S. implementation of Annex V. The committee addressed all vessel operations—all fleets, all ports and terminals, and all pertinent public and private institutions. It was charged with

• examining the roles and responsibilities of the agencies, organizations, fleets, and ports in a national implementation of the convention;

• identifying institutional, administrative, or policy changes that could contribute to the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, including proposals needing further research or application;

• reviewing the state of practice for marine debris controls, shipboard waste handling, and shoreside waste reception facilities;

• suggesting strategies for integrating waste management practices;

• identifying technology or science areas that could contribute to the implementation of MARPOL Annex V, including methods needing further research or development; and

• developing elements of a strategy to improve the authorities' abilities to compel compliance with MARPOL Annex V.

No similar strategic analysis has been conducted by any nation signing Annex V or earlier MARPOL annexes. Therefore, the committee's effort may establish a precedent for examining how to incorporate a global environmental treaty into national governmental responsibilities. The present focus on vessel garbage notwithstanding, the committee's overall approach may be applicable to the broader roster of MARPOL annexes, which address prevention of pollution by oil, hazardous substances, and sewage from ships, as well as a future annex that will address air pollution.

Over a two-year period the committee met six times, including four meetings in working ports on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The committee received briefings from representatives of all major domestic fleets, as well as port operators, waste haulers, environmental advocates and scientists studying marine debris, technologists developing garbage disposal methods and equipment, and a variety of state and local government officials working to incorporate Annex V into the duties and responsibilities of their organizations.

The meetings were supplemented by individual interviews and site visits at waterfront facilities and waste hauling firms. A brief questionnaire was sent to a variety of port officials, port users, and waste haulers. The committee also conducted international correspondence to keep abreast of other national implementation regimes, especially with regard to port reception facilities and emerging developments in regional Annex V enforcement arrangements. A broad literature search assisted the committee in gathering information from a variety of private and government sources, from the well known to the obscure.

As part of the study, the committee reviewed earlier estimates of garbage generated by vessels (National Research Council, 1975; Eastern Research Group, 1988; Cantin et al., 1990) and examined other data of potential use in developing new estimates. While all available data sets are flawed, the committee drew on a variety of sources to develop its own rough estimates of the garbage generated by each U.S. maritime sector. The committee also sought to characterize, to the degree possible, current disposal practices and options for improving garbage management. As part of this effort, the committee commissioned a background paper on the U.S. Navy's garbage disposal practices and proposals (Swanson et al., 1994).⁵

The report is organized into three general sections: background, analysis, and synthesis. Chapter 1 provides background by summarizing the history and mandates of Annex V and progress in U.S. implementation efforts to date. The

analysis begins in Chapter 2, which defines the scope of the problem by outlining what is known about the sources, fates, and effects of vessel garbage. In addition to compiling the findings of others with respect to these topics, the committee conducted original analyses of garbage sources.

Chapters 3-8 build the foundation for the design of an Annex V implementation program. Chapter 3 outlines the hazard evolution model employed by the committee. This model is applied to the various maritime sectors in Chapter 4, which identifies opportunities for intervening in the evolution of the hazard (marine debris). The committee found it essential to examine each fleet separately, because their characteristics varied so widely. Chapter 5 examines the interface between vessels and ports, viewing vessel garbage management as a system. Chapter 6 addresses Annex V education and training. Chapter 7 examines several overarching issues, including the need for leadership and problems related to Annex V enforcement. Chapter 8 reviews opportunities for measuring progress in implementation of Annex V.

The last two chapters synthesize the findings from the analysis to outline a strategy that, in the committee's judgment, can lead to more complete U.S. compliance with and implementation of the mandates of Annex V. Chapter 9 contains fleet-specific advice, recommending objectives and tactics to be used within each maritime sector. Chapter 10 presents conclusions and recommendations for action by the federal government to improve overall implementation of Annex V in multiple maritime sectors.

The volume also contains, in addition to the biographies of the committee members, five other appendixes, which supplement the committee's report. Appendix B contains copies of Annex V and the IMO standards for on-board incinerators. Appendix C is a paper written by a committee member on the international law of the sea. The remaining three appendixes, which were written or commissioned by the committee, summarize background information compiled from multiple sources that may be difficult for readers to gather themselves. Appendix D lists key milestones in U.S. implementation of Annex V. Appendix E, an excerpt from the background paper commissioned by the committee, outlines the characteristics of the eight special areas designated under Annex V. Appendix F provides details on the harm caused by marine debris to supplement the summary of ecological effects at the end of Chapter 2.

The report is organized so that readers interested in specific maritime sectors or federal agencies can find relevant sections easily. Each sector is examined individually in chapters 2, 4, and 9. These sections also address related federal activities. Federal officials also will be interested in chapters 5-8 and 10. Recommendations for federal action are organized by agency in the Executive Summary.

The recommendations in chapters 9 and 10 represent the committee's consensus concerning the best use of the disparate skills and authorities of government, industry, and community-based individuals and organizations to improve

management of an activity that, while seemingly mundane, can have far-reaching effects—disposal of vessel garbage.

The committee wishes to thank the dozens of individuals who contributed their time and effort to this project, whether in the form of presentations at meetings, correspondence, or telephone calls. Invaluable assistance was provided to both the committee and the Marine Board staff by representatives of federal agencies, private companies in various maritime sectors, citizen and environmental groups, and waste management industries.

In particular, the committee wishes to acknowledge its liaisons with the project sponsors: Commander Jeff Beach and Lieutenant Commander J.M. Farley, Marine Environmental Protection Division, U.S. Coast Guard; James Coe and John Clary of the Marine Entanglement Research Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Lawrence J. Koss, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy; Daniel W. Leubecker, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Maritime Administration; Steve Levy, Municipal Solid Waste Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and David Redford, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Special thanks also are due to Robert Blumberg, Office of Ocean Affairs, Department of State; Ronald B. Caffey, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; William Eichbaum, World Wildlife Fund and Marine Board liaison to the committee; and John Twiss, executive director, and David Laist, policy and program analyst, of the Marine Mammal Commission.

Finally, the chairman wishes to recognize members of the committee, not only for their hard work during meetings and in reviewing drafts of this report but also for their many individual efforts in gathering information and writing sections of the report.

Cantin, J., J. Eyraud, and C. Fenton. 1990. Quantitative Estimates of Garbage Generation and Disposal in the U.S. Maritime Sectors Before and After MARPOL Annex V. Pp. 119-181 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. I), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. December.

Eastern Research Group (ERG). 1988. Development of Estimates of Garbage Disposal in the Maritime Sectors. Final report prepared for the Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Arlington, Mass.: ERG. December. (ERG is now in Lexington, Mass.)

National Research Council (NRC). 1975. Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. Ocean Affairs Board, NRC. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Swanson, R.L., R.R. Young, and S.S. Ross. 1994. An Analysis of Proposed Shipborne Waste Handling Practices Aboard United States Navy Vessels. Paper prepared for the Committee on Shipborne Wastes, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

garbage:*

food, domestic, and operational waste (excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, sewage, and drainage water) generated during normal operations and liable to be disposed of continuously. Garbage thus includes solid wastes often identified as ''trash''.

ocean(s):

all waters where Annex V is in force, including seas, estuaries, coastal waters, and, in the United States (under domestic law), inland waterways.

marine environment:

same as ocean.

port:

any landing area (port, marina, pier, dock, or ramp) for vessels.

port reception facility:*

any receptacle, from trash cans to dumpsters to barges, maintained by or at a port to receive garbage generated on vessels.

ship:

a large vessel, such as a cargo or passenger cruise ship.

special area:*

a sea area subject to special Annex V restrictions on garbage discharges.

vessel:

any water craft or structure, from small boats to ships to oil drilling platforms, that carries humans.

zero discharge:

no garbage is discharged overboard except, under certain conditions, food waste.

APHIS

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CMC

Center for Marine Conservation

COA

Certificate of Adequacy

DOS

Department of State

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

GOMP

Gulf of Mexico Program

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IOC

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

ISWMS

Integrated Solid Waste Management System

MARAD

Maritime Administration

MDIO

Marine Debris Information Office

MERP

Marine Entanglement Research Program

MMC

Marine Mammal Commission

MMS

Minerals Management Service

MPPRCA

Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

SPA

Shore Protection Act

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

CLEAN SHIPS

CLEAN PORTS

CLEAN OCEANS