rural integrity and the condition of on-board pollution control equipment. In mid-1993, the Port of Rotterdam went even further, initiating a partnership with several other port authorities for the exchange of information concerning amounts of garbage on board a ship when it leaves a port. This program, known as Port Promotion MARPOL, initially will include port authorities in Bremen, Germany; Felixstowe, United Kingdom; and Barcelona, Spain.

Correspondence received by the committee indicates that some local and national governments in other countries have integrated waste management at ports into planning for municipal and regional waste systems. Both Bremen, Germany and Copenhagen, Denmark established Annex V port reception facilities as part of overall municipal waste management (Federal Republic of Germany, 1990; Larsen and Borrild, 1991). Even the Port of Manila, in the Philippines, where vessel operators historically discharged garbage overboard without punishment, now mandates that operators off-load ship's garbage into port reception facilities (Fairplay International Shipping Weekly, 1993).

An example of well-managed garbage management at U.S. marinas may be found at the Port of Oakland on San Francisco Bay. Recreational boat owners have cooperated with the 10 port-owned marinas in curtailing trash discharges at sea. The port operator, based on polls of boater tenants, determined that it would be sufficient to supply ample dumpsters at each marina and arrange for regular pickups of the garbage (Irvin-Jones, 1992).

The special needs of fishing ports merit some attention, for two reasons. First, fishing seasons are shortened artificially by the federal management regime (Pacific Associates, 1988), so fishing ports must plan for fluctuating demand for garbage reception facilities. The surge loads on landside facilities may overwhelm local capabilities on occasion. Second, fishing fleets sometimes operate from terminals that are managed privately or by the local government, rather than by a public port authority. As a result, development of reception facilities in fishing ports has been uneven, even though notable pilot projects have been undertaken with federal funding (Recht, 1988; Recht and Lasseigne, 1990) and state and local government funding (Bayliss and Cowles, 1989).

In the Gulf of Maine, a regional campaign is under way to encourage fishermen to bring debris back to shore and deposit it into reception facilities at piers (Pearce, 1992). In the Gulf of Mexico, the shrimp fleet in Aransas Pass, Texas operates out of a harbor owned by the municipality, and the city manager oversees the fishing port. The town installed additional dumpsters at the docks to enable Annex V compliance by shrimpers. By contrast, some sport fishing piers in the United States have no dumpsters or other waste receptacles anywhere in sight.

Although it is difficult to generalize about garbage handling practices in

ports, the basic strategies can be characterized according to port type, as indicated in Table 5-2. All nine categories of vessels examined in this report use one or more of the port facilities listed. It is important to remember that ports vary widely in terms of size, types of vessels served, and management organization—all factors that affect choice of garbage management strategies.

Disposal approaches (the second column) can be as simple as putting a trash can on a dock. On the other hand, disposal can become complicated for commercial vessels calling at many different ports, due to variations in garbage-handling practices, restrictions, and fee structures. Costs vary, as they reflect local disposal costs for land-generated garbage and may be based on tons, cubic meters, truckloads, or other measures, depending on local practice. The cost in 1992 was $400 for 36 cubic meters in Honolulu; $1,300 per ton in San Diego; free of charge for the first truckload in Goa, India; and $1,288 for a 60-meter barge full in Hong Kong. Docking fees typically cover docking costs and do not include garbage disposal services or costs; some managers believe this is a source of inefficiency (Robert N. Shepard, Fennell Container Company, personal communication to Marine Board staff, July 1, 1992).