COPI - DTIC · fie copi 0 n dtic i electe nov1 o i1 9 contract n00014-88-j-1103 i reducing navy...

FIE COPI

0N

DTICELECTEI NOV1 o i1 9

Contract N00014-88-J-1103

i

REDUCING NAVY MARINE PLASTIC POLLUTION

A REPORT BY THE KEYSTONE CENTER

TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

FOR SHIPBUILDING AND LOGISTICS

ArveUTONSTATEMEYr A

Approwred for public releaselDistribution Unlimited

1 JUNE 28, 1988

I

Ig..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction 1

II. Supply 6

III. Technology 16

IV. Operations 23

V. Education 36

Appendix A - Individuals Consulted in Report Preparation

Appendix B - Glossary of Terms

rceo ForNTIS CRA&IDT IC TA3 [

D 1 T -, 11P.

U ,,:.... Z Z . ...

Di t

A-I

A

.I

b INTRODUCTION

V ack round

Over the last two decades, the United States and other nationshave become increasingly aware of the impacts of human activityon the marine environment. In recent years, no environmentalissue involving the oceans has engendered as much publicattention and concern as marine plastics pollution. Plasticdebris from ships is littering beaches, and killing anddebilitating fish and wildlife because they are ingestingplastic, or because they are becoming entangled in plasticdebris. While no one is purposefully causing these impacts, theeffects are becoming more pronounced. In the United States andthroughout much of the world, the use of plastics has grownexponentially. Plastic products are often more economical thannon-plastic substitutes and present many attractive

characteristics. Plastics enhance the shelf life and storage ofproducts, provide ease in handling and use, and are durable andlong lasting. As a consequence, the use of plastic products forfood storage and packaging, and as a component of many everydayproducts, has increased significantly. The result is readilyapparent in the increase in plastic use at home, in commercialuse, and on board commercial and military ships. ) 4 .-

Unfortunately, some of the characteristics that make the use ofplastics so desirable create adverse environmental effects,particularly when disposed of in the marine environment. Theproliferation of plastic products disposed of at sea is evidentin the alarming increase in plastic beach litter worldwide.Plastic products are now found washing ashore in such remoteplaces as Antarctica. Everyday solid wastes disposed of at seanow contain an increasing percentage of plastic products that donot degrade (ranging from plastic garbage bags, to styrofoamcoffee cups, to plastic shrink wrap). These wastes are findingtheir way into the marine ecosystem and affecting (and oftentimeskilling) marine life which have eaten or become entangled in six-pack rings, plastic strapping bands, or other plastic material.

Over the last several years, the international community hasactively begun to address the problem of plastic pollution in themarine environment. In 1973, under the auspices of theInternational Maritime Organization in London, the United Statesand other maritime nations signed the International Conventionfor the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL(which stands for Marine Pollution). MARPOL was developed tobegin regulating pollution from ships resulting from operationaland accidental discharges of oil, chemicals, sewage and garbage.Annex V of MARPOL focuses on the discharge of garbage from ships;including a ban on the disposal of plastics at sea. Annex Vcomes into effect for signatory nations one year from the datethat it was signed by countries representing 50% of the world's

1. ...

shipping tonnage (one year from December 30, 1987). MARPOLexempts military vessels from its provisions, including theprohibitions in Annex V, but requires that military vessels beoperated in a manner consistent with MARPOL to the extentpracticable. In implementing Annex V of MARPOL, the UnitedStates Congress, in Public Law 100-220 (Title II, the MarinePlastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987), requiredthat military vessels comply with the provisions of Annex V infive years (including the ban on plastics disposal at sea) anddevelop a plan outlining how the Navy would approach compliance.Congress provided that this effort should not interfere withoperations during wartime or during a national emergency.Congress also indicated that if the Navy believed it could notcomply with the five year ban on plastics disposal, it would havethree years to report back to Congress on the progress made anddevelop an alternative schedule.

During preliminary discussions regarding the implementation ofAnnex V, the U.S. Navy expressed concern that it faced apotentially insurmountable challenge in complying with the fiveyear marine plastics disposal provision. However, in September1987 during Congressional hearings on this issue, Everett Pyatt,Assistant Secretary for Shipbuilding and Logistics indicatedthat the Navy would make every effort to comply with the UnitedStates' commitment to Annex V of MARPOL. Shortly after thathearing, before the eventual enactment of the legislation byCongress, the Assistant Secretary asked The Keystone Center todevelop strategies the Navy might consider to help address theproblem of marine plastics pollution.

In developing this report, The Keystone Center consultedextensively with Navy personnel actively involved in Navyresearch and development, procurement and supply, operations, andshipboard environmental planning in developing itsrecommendations. Representatives from the David Taylor ResearchCenter; Chief of Naval Operations; Commander in Chief, AtlanticFleet; Naval Supply Systems Command; Naval Sea Systems Command;Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps International Law Division;Office of Navy Legislative Affairs; and the Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Navy for Shipbuilding and Logisticswere actively consulted in developing the recommendations in thisreport. The Keystone Center also consulted with representativesfrom citizen and environmental organizations as well ascongressional staff actively involved with and knowledgeableabout the marine plastics pollution problem. This includedrepresentatives from the Cetacean Society; the Animal ProtectionInstitute of America; the Oceanic Sociecy; the Defenders ofWildlife; the Center for Environmental Education; the TexasEnvironmental Coalition; the National Audubon Society; theNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation; the Monitor Consortium andGreenpeace U.S.A.; as well as Congressional staff from the SenateCommerce, Science and Transportation Committee; House Merchant

2

Marine and Fisheries Committee; Senator Chafee's Office; andRepresentative Schneider's Office.

During the early stages of its work, The Keystone Center focusedon establishing a common framework for understanding the natureof the problem, the special challenges faced by the Navy, and thenature of existing information and programs currently being usedby the Navy to address the plastics problem. During this earlyphase, Keystone staff reviewed data regarding the types andquantity of plastics used on board ship; the effects of ship sizeand type of operations on the generation of plastic waste and onthe ability to store and dispose of plastics; as well as existingand planned technological innovations that might contribute toresolving the problem. Keystone staff visited the David TaylorResearch Center in Annapolis, Maryland to learn about technologyoptions; spent two days with the Commander in Chief of theAtlantic Fleet and his staff; and spent time on board severalships at the Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia to learn moreabout Navy supply systems, operations, and planning processes.A Keystone staff member also spent two days on board an aircraftcarrier at sea working with Navy staff to better understandshipboard life and the nature of the plastics problem on board alarge ship with five thousand crew. During the carrier visit,Keystone staff had an opportunity to meet with Navy personnel whowould be directly affected by The Center's recommendations andto exchange thoughts about possible solutions.

After a substantial commitment of time and energy devoted tounderstanding the nature and extent of the problem for the Navy,The Keystone Center concluded that no single easy solution couldeliminate the problem. At that point, Keystone began to realizethat addressing the marine plastic pollution problem wouldrequire a combination of approaches, each contributing to thereduction and elimination of the disposal of plastics at sea.

The Report

The attached report represents six months of effort and isseparated into four sections: supply, technology, operations,and education. In developing recommendations, Keystoneattempted to take the Navy's primary mission into account, aswell as the realities of shipboard life, and the challenge ofaffecting change in a large organization. Keystone also tried totake into account unique opportunities presented by the realitiesof the Navy including the Navy's historic pride in leadership asa Service; the level of pride found on each ship; the Service'ssubstantial research and development capability; the "can do"attitude found throughout the Navy; unique aspects of the supplyand operations systems; and the environmental sensitivity foundon shipboard visits.

3

' ,

44

- / . II • i MM H~ili I4

- -

The supply recommendations, discussed first in the report, areconsidered to be of the highest priority. The reduction in theamount of plastics coming on board a ship will greatly reduce theneed for expensive technologies intended to facilitate storageand disposal. Keystone believes that the reduction of plasticsin the Navy supply system is the most direct and cost effectivesolution to the marine plastics problem and can significantlyreduce the discharge of plastic at sea. The Keystone Centerworked very closely with the Naval Supply Systems Command andcommunicated with the Defense Logistics Agency and the GeneralServices Administration in developing this section of the report.The recommendations included in this section attempt to reflectthe realities of the Navy supply system and on board use ofmaterials. They range from identifying high volume food itemsfor which non-plastic packaging is now available, to conductingwaste stream surveys on ships at sea, to reviewing existingsupply specifications with an eye toward procuring the same itemsin non-plastic packaging. The remaining sections of the reportare not prioritized.

The second set of recommendations presented in the reportaddresses technology options. Keystone worked closely withrepresentatives from the David Taylor Research Center, Naval SeaSystems Command, Chief of Naval Operations, and Atlantic FleetCommand to draw upon emerging technologies being developed by theNavy or considered elsewhere. The Keystone Center also workedwith the Navy to identify potential new areas of research thatmight provide technological solutions to the plastic marinepollution problem. The trash compactor and the plastic wasteprocessor discussed in this section of the report present veryviable alternatives that could contribute to Navy compliance withthe plastics disposal provision in the legislation. While thecosts associated with research and development, production andinstallation might seem high, the extent of the problem and therelative contribution to solving the problem appear to justifythe expenditure and appear consistent with other Navyinnovations. The recommendations in this section encourage thedevelopment of technologies to handle and dispose of plastics andcall for the development of new materials with the properties ofplastic that will degrade rapidly in the marine environment.

The third section of the report focuses on operations. Thissection focuses on opportunities for change in shipboardprocedures that could be made in the short term to assist in:reducing the amount of plastic used; enhancing storagepossibilities while at sea; and developing disposal restrictions.Again, the Keystone Center worked closely with Navy staff anddrew upon the group's shipboard experience to developrecommendations that could be implemented in a cost efficientmanner. The recommendations in this section include suggestionsto off-load unnecessary plastic wrapping and trash before leaving

4

IT

I

jport, separate and store plastic trash, and initiate conservationand recycling policies on a fleetwide basis.

The fourth and final section of this report focuses on education.If the Navy is to implement an ongoing strategy to manage,reduce, and eliminate plastics at sea, it will need to informits personnel about the nature of the problem; communicate the

Navy's commitment to solving the problem; encourage new ideas;and generate support for shipboard and service-wide activities.The recommendations in this section call for disseminatinginformation about the plastic debris problem and distributing theNavy's plan to all Navy personnel, developing educationalmaterials for naval supply centers and procurement offices,utilizing special awards for ships, and developing a shipboardeducation package. The Keystone Center is pleased to report thatmany of the education recommendations already have begun to beimplemented as part of the Ship Waste Plastics ControlDemonstration Project by the David Taylor Research Center anaAtlantic Fleet Command.

In each section of the report, Keystone summarizes therecommendations generated in that section followed by a narrativeexplaining the justification for each recommendation (i.e., theproblem it will address). This is followed by a briefdiscussion of what is currently being done by the Navy regardingthat particular recommendation as well as what needs to be donein the future. A time frame is then outlined for completion ofthe proposed recommendation, identifies responsibility for thenext steps within the Navy, estimates the costs for therecommendation (in 1988 dollars), and ranks the relative priorityof the recommendation within that section. Keystone wishes tounderline that the cost estimates are just that, estimates.Keystone staff attempted to draw upon the expertise of Navy staffas well as prior examples of Navy work to develop the costestimates. In some areas, this neatly fell into a fairlypredictable dollar category. In others, such as the supply andoperations sections, the costs include human resource costs whichare difficult to measure. Where hard dollar estimates were notreadily available, The Center depended exclusively on estimatingthe cost as high, medium or low. This represents a ranking ofrecommendations relative to each other within a section of the

report to communicate the perceived relative expense of eachrecommendation. Finally, it should be noted that eachrecommendation is prioritized (i.e., high, medium, low) relativeto the other recommendations within that section of the report.The recommendations are presented in the order of perceivedimportance within each section.

!5

Ci m mQ mmm

II. SUPPLY

The Navy supply system is the first point at which the Navy canreduce or eliminate its use of plastic and is considered thehighest priority for action. The elimination or reduction ofplastic packaging in the supply system can have a significantimpact on other points in the waste stream. If less plasticpackaging is purchased, less plastic will need to be handled andstored on ships for off-loading later. Less plastic which has tobe stored means less wear and tear on shipboard equipment such ascompactors, processors or thermal destruction devices.

The intent of this section of the report is to help the Navyidentify plastic in the supply system, evaluate the use ofplastic on board ship and develop strategies to help prevent itspurchase and deployment to Navy vessels where possible.

One need only look at the shelves of the local grocery store tosee how pervasive plastic packaging is in our society. Specialneeds of the Navy, such as long periods of time spent away fromport, the rolling movements of ships at sea, high humidity onboard ships, and the corrosive nature of salt air and spray makeplastics even more attractive for use on ships than in ordinaryhousehold environments.

Most of the recommendations in this section deal with plasticfood packaging. Although quantitative studies have not yet beencompleted, available data indicate that packaging of these fooditems constitute the largest part of the plastics on board Navyships. These items are used on board all vessels in the Navy andmake up a large part of stores which must be replenishedperiodically. In addition, shipboard storage of plastic whichhas contained food may pose a sanitation problem. For thesereasons, the supply system, in general, and plastic foodpackaging, in particular, were considered a high priority area.The Keystone Center based its determination of priorities for thesupply recommendations on the contribution to reduction inplastic use, time required for implementation, and financialcosts involved.

A. SUMMARY OF SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Identify high volume food items for which non-plasticpackaging is now available.

2. Conduct waste stream surveys on ships at sea.

3. Select and order non-plastic packaging alternatives fortest runs on demonstration ships based on results ofwaste stream surveys.

6

I _ _ '

I

4. Review all existing supply specifications forpossibile procurement of items in non-plasticpackaging. Change to non-plastic packaging wherepossible.

5. Identify and implement use of alternatives to plasticrepackaging and over-pack materials at Naval SupplyCenters throughout the United States and the NavalSupply Depots overseas.

6. Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) andthe Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to gain theircooperation in identifying non-plastic packaging foritems they order for the Navy. Secure ongoing supportand assistance from the Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD) and other military services.

7. Review ships stores to identify plastic packaging whichcan be eliminated.

8. Establish within the Naval Supply Systems Command(NAVSUP) a Plastic Program Manager Office to plan,manage and coordinate NAVSUP's efforts to reduceplastics going on board ships.

9. Change supply/specification policy to include steps toinvestigate availability of non-plastic or reusablepackaging.

10. Review Department of Defense (DOD) research onalternate non-plastic packaging and other DOD projectsfor applicability to the plastic disposal problem.

11. Review military, government and commercial data basesfor research projects having possible impact on theplastic disposal problem. Particular attention shouldbe paid to those projects dealing with non-plasticpackaging. Investigate promising projects.

12. Poll scientific organizations, industry groups, tradeassociations and individuals to find projectscontemplated or underway which affect the plasticdisposal problem. Test promising proposals.

B. NARRATIVE DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Identify himh volume food items for which non-plasticPackaginf is now available.

Justification: There are food items on the Navy'ssupply list for which non-plastic packaging may be

7

j available. The switch to alternative packaging forthese items may be made relatively quickly, providingthe Navy with a definitive early success in its effortsto reduce plastic waste.

What has been done: Lists of all food items ordered bythe Navy have been reviewed. Approximately 30 high-volume items with plastic packaging have been selectedfor evaluation. Letters have been written to theDefense Logistics Agency and General ServicesAdministration inquiring whether non-plastic packagingis available for these items. The U.S. Army ResearchDevelopment and Engineering Center in Natick,Massachusetts has been asked to develop specificationsfor non-plastic alternative packaging (seeRecommendation 10). These 30 items were used asexamples of products needing alternative non-plasticpackaging.

What needs to be done: Other food items will beidentified to DLA for possible change in packaging.For those items that have already been identified, itmust be determined whether non-plastic packaging issuitable for Navy vessels. Changes in procurement willbe phased in as appropriate.

Time frame for completion: 6-12 months.

Responsibility: Navy Fleet Commands and Naval SupplySystems Command.

Cost Estimate: Low administrative cost (could be partof the Plastic Program Manager Office's responsibilitydiscussed in Recommendation #8). Product cost may behigher, however, for non-plastic, non-commercialpackaging).

Priority: High.

2. Conduct waste stream surveys on ships at sea.

In these studies of shipboard trash, the test vesselkeeps all trash on board ship for a specified period oftime. The plastic waste is then analyzed to determinethe type, weight and volume of plastic.

Justification: Waste stream surveys will identifytypes of plastic waste that contribute most to theweight or volume of plastics on ships. These "worstoffenders" can be targeted for elimination or reductionsooner than other items which might not contribute asmuch to the plastic disposal problem.

8

I

What has been done: Statements of work have beenprovided to the David Taylor Research Center by theAtlantic Fleet, Naval Supply Systems Command, and NavalSea Systems Command.

What needs to be done: Proceed as quickly as possiblewith the studies.

Time frame for completion: Baseline studies - 1988;J continuing studies - 1989.

Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operations, FleetCommands, and David Taylor Research Center.

Cos& Estimate: Low (approximately $350,000 forRecommendations 2 and 3).

Priority: High.

3. Select and order non-plastic packaging alternatives fortest runs on demonstration ships based on results ofwaste stream surveys.

Changes in supply and operational procedures will betested on demonstration ships to ascertain theirimpact.

Justification: Results of the waste stream studieswill identify high volume items whose change to non-plastic packaging will theoretically lessen the amountof plastic to be disposed, but verification of theresults on board actual ships is necessary. Thesetrial runs will allow evaluation of a significantdollar investment in hardware, including developmentand deployment of shipboard compactors, pulpers andplastic waste processors, and will provide a blueprintJfor the success of the entire plastics reductionprogram.

What has been done: Chief of Naval Operations hastasked (i.e., requested) fleets to plan demonstrationprojects. David Taylor Research Center has been taskedas project manager.

What needs to be done: Demonstration projects shouldbe completed and evaluated.

Time frame for completion: Tasking calls forpreliminary reports on the first two ships by 30 June,1988. Final report of demonstration projects is due 30March, 1989.

9

Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operations.

Cost: Low ($350,000 for this program and waste streamstudies in Recommendation 2).

Priority: High.

4. Review all existing supply specifications forpossibile procurement of items in non-plasticpackaging. Change to non-plastic packaging wherepossible.

Specifications will be chosen for revicw based onresults of waste stream studies. Where alternate non-plastic packaging is now available, it should beordered. Suppliers should be asked to determinewhether they would supply products in non-plasticpackaging if requested by the Navy. Wherespecifications require plastic packaging, it should bedetermined if plastic packaging is functionallynecessary. If it is determined that non-plasticpackaging would suffice and the supplier will offerit, the alternate packaging should be ordered.

Justification: There may be opportunities to reducethe amount of plastic taken on board ships by simplyreviewing existing procurement specifications or askingvendors for non-plastic packaging.

What has been done: Project description and budget forcontracted work have been developed.

What needs to be done: Conduct complete analysis ofpackaging specifications. Change specifications whereappropriate. To insure the greatest benefit of review,specifications for high volume items should betargeted, (e.g., food items first, high volume itemsfrom waste stream study second, those packingspecifications that have application to the greatestnumber of end items, such as those which have similarpackaging needs, third).

Time frame for completion: Analysis - 12 months forfood items, 24 months for other high volume items;change in procurement - 2-3 years from identification.

Responsibility: Naval Supply Systems Command.

Cost Estimate: Medium ($200,000 a year for fiveyears).

10

I

Priority: High.

5. Identify and implement use of alternatives to plasticrepackaging and over-pack materials at Naval SupplyCenters throughout the United States and the NavalSupply Depots overseas.

Justification: Personnel will be responsible forremoving plastic from ships before deploying andrepackaging items to eliminate plastic. Example:under current procedures, supply centers and depotsrepackage material in plastic shrink wrap, stretchwrap, bubble wrap, and micro foam. This procedureshould be changed where possible. Changing theprocedure may require new equipment and personnel.

What has been done: A recommendation to add packing/packaging personnel at Naval Supply Centers and NavalSupply Depots has been approved by the AssistantSecretary of the Navy for Shipbuilding and Logistics.

What needs to be done: The Naval Supply SystemsCommand should identify alternative pre-packagingmaterials and methods and implement new procedures.

Time frame for completion: 1989.


Cost Estimate: Medium (approximately $1.4 millionannually).

Priority: High.

6. Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) andthe Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to gain theircooperation in identifying non-plastic packaging foritems they order for the Navy. Secure onaoing suportand assistance from the Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD) and other military services.

Justification: The Naval Supply Systems Command is incontrol of the purchase of only 20-25% of the itemstaken on board Navy ships. Other governmentprocurement organizations control the remainder. TheNavy should attempt to educate these otherorganizations about the problem of marine plasticpollution and obtain their cooperation in solving it.

What has been done: Points of contact at GSA and DLAhave been established. The Armed Forces Product

- -1

I

Evaluation Committee has also been advised of theproblem.

What needs to be done: The Navy should identifyoffices in other military services, such as the DODFood Planning Board and other DOD groups, and begindiscussions with them.


J Responsibility: Naval Supply Systems Command.

Cost Estimate: Low (could be part of the PlasticProgram Manager Office's responsibility outlined inRecommendation #8).

Priority: High.

7. Review ships stores to identify plastic Packaging whichcan be eliminated.

Justification. Ships stores often contain items whichare unnecessarily packaged in plastic.

What has been done: A contract for 11 million plasticshopping bags destined for ships stores has beencancelled. Six-pack rings and plastic over-wrap forsoft drink containers have been targeted forelimination. Letters have been written to suppliersannouncing the change. Other items are being reviewed

jfor possible change.

What needs to be done: Review should continue.

Time frame for completion: Ongoing.


Cost Estimate: Unknown (may result in increased costto individual sailors for ship stores items).

Priori: High.

8. Establish within the Naval Supply Systems Command(NAVSUP) a Plastic Program Manager Office to plan.manage and coordinate NAVSUP's efforts to reduce-plastics £oing on board ships.

Justification: This Office will be responsible forexecuting the Naval Supply Systems Command plan ofaction and establishing Navy policy through

12

F | I|

coordination with NAVSUP, field activities, other Navyactivities, military services and federal agencies.

What has been done: A recommendation to establish aPlastics Program Manager Office has been provided tothe Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Shipbuildingand Logistics.

What needs to be done: Naval Supply Systems Commandmust obtain funding and establish the program office.



Cost Estimate: Medium (approximately $200,000annually).

Priority: High.

9. Chanxe supply/specification Policy to include stens toinvestigate availability of non-plastic or reusablepackaming.

Justification: The search for non-plastic or reusablepackaging should be an on-going process in the supplysystem.

What has been done: No action.

What needs to be done: Naval Supply Systems Commandshould initiate a proposed change in the procurementprocess for evaluating the availability of the non-plastic or reusable plastic packaging in allprocurement activities.

Time frame for comyletion: 6 months.


Cost Estimate: Unknown (cost of product may be higherSI due to use of non-commercial packaging).

Priorit: High.

10. Review Department of Defense (DOD) research onalternate non-plastic vackaging and other DOD Projectsfor applicability to the Plastic disnosal Problem.

Justification: Some research is already underway atU.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Center,in Natick, Massachusetts (Natrick Laboratories), which

13

a I.-- - II i N I~ma a o

, Iwill help reduce the amount of plastics on board ships.Possibilities include projects which have a directimpact on Navy efforts, such as development of a non-plastic food container. Others, such as research into

i ambient temperature washing capability (washing disheswith room temperature water), will have an indirectimpact on the disposal of plastic. If it issuccessfully implemented, plastic utensils will not benecessary when a ship loses steam power.

What has been done: Natick Laboratories has beenI requested to develop non-plastic food packaging thatachieves the desirable characteristics of plasticpackaging such as storage life and sanitation.Research on ambient temperature washing capability hasbeen completed.

What needs to be done: Specifications should bedeveloped for non-plastic packaging for circulation tovendors as an example of possible future packagingrequirements.

Time frame for completion: 1989 - 1992.


Cost Estimate: Medium ($100,000 - $500,000 per year).

Priority: High.

11. Review military, uovernment, and commercial data basesfor research projects having possible impact on thePlastic disposal problem. Particular attention shouldbe Paid to those projects dealing with non-plasticPackaging. Investifate Promisina Projects.

Possibilities include Defense Logistics Studies,Information Exchange Search, Defense TechnicalInformation Center, and National Technical InformationService (Commerce Department).

Justification: The Navy should take advantage of workalready completed, or in progress, which would have aneffect on the plastics disposal problem.

What has been done: The Navy has received initialproducts from Defense Logistics Studies InformationExchange Search and Defense Technical Information

Center.

What needs to be done: The National Technical

[ 14

'I

I

Information Service should be contacted. Analysis ofproducts already received should be done.

Time frame for completion: Searches - 1988;investigation of projects - 1989.


Cost Estimate: Low.

jPriority: Low.

12. Poll scientific orfanizations, industry groups, t.radeassociations and individuals to find pro.jectscontemplated or underway which affect the plasticdisposal problem. Test promising proposals.

Possibilities include placing advertisements inCommerce Business Daily, talking to industry groupssuch as the National Paper Institute, and discussionswith scientific organizations such as the NationalResearch Council/ National Science Foundation.

Justification: The Navy should encourage otherorganizations to get involved in research whichpertains to solutions to the plastic pollution problemand should take advantage of research which is alreadyunderway.

What has been done: Commerce Business Daily Requesti for Information has been published.

What needs to be done: Other organizations, such asthose mentioned above, should be contacted and analysisdone on information received.

Time frame for completion: Review - 1988; test - 1989-j1990.

Responsibility: Contacting Commerce Business Daily,industry groups - Naval Supply Systems Command; liaisonwith National Research Council - Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for Shipbuilding and Logistics.

[Cost Estimate: Low.

Pirt: Low.

i15

III. TECHNOLOGY

Although some solutions to the Navy's plastic waste problem canbe implemented immediately and are fiscally inexpensive, otherswill require highly technical and somewhat expensive hardware.Some of this equipment is now undergoing field testing, withfleetwide installation of the equipment imminent. OtherI equipment will require design, prototype construction, testing,and evaluation before installation and use can occur. Althoughthe estimated cost for all of the hardware is significant, TheKeystone Center believes that the overall benefits will faroutweigh the costs. Benefits derived from the use of thisequipment and these technologies will not only help the Navy dealwith its plastics problems, but will assist the Navy inaddressing the overall waste management challenge presented byother solid wastes such as paper, cardboard, metal, and glass.Some of the recommended technologies described below, nottargeted exclusively at plastics, will provide more space, savemore time, and utilize less labor, and will thereby contribute tosolving the marine plastic pollution problem. Although sometechnological solutions will require years of development, TheKeystone Center recommends that the Navy consider all options fordealing with the management of plastic waste.

The Keystone Center based its determination of priorities inthis section of the report on the following criteria:feasibility; proven nature of the technology; level ofsignificance in reducing the plastics waste stream; level ofsignificance in reducing the non-plastics waste stream; short-term versus long-term nature of the solution; potential forgreatest impact; need for a technology; and cost.

Please note that food waste disposers/grinders were notconsidered as part of this analysis because their use does notcontribute to reduction or elimination of plastic disposal, orother non-food-related wastes.

A. SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Trash Compactor2. Plastic Waste Processor3. Enhanced Degradable Packaging Materials4. Solid Waste Pulper5. Thermal Destruction Device6. Dedicated Garbage Barge

16!I


1. Trash Compactor

Justification: Use of a trash compactor will greatlyfacilitate storage of plastic and other garbage (e.g.,paper, cardboard, metal, and glass) on board ship. Itwill provide tremendous space-savings, with easierhandling and off-loading of compacted trash.Installation and use of the vertical trash compactorfleetwide would implement a feasible, proventechnology. Its use is applicable to all ships in theNavy, regardless of size. The compactor is fullyautomated and is designed to take many types of trash,including plastics.

If, in the future, trash is separated -- glass, metal,paper, and cardboard -- recycling efforts, ifdeveloped, could be expedited. In addition, compactionof non-plastic waste will result in greater availablespace for dealing with plastic waste. It will alsofacilitate easier overboard disposal of these wastesdue to their compact characteristics, and it willenable better storage of wastes which cannot be dumpedoverboard while ships are in no dumping areas.

The trash compactor is designed to be a breakdownmodel and, thus, can be taken piecemeal onto each ship,eliminating the need to cut and reweld the hull to

bring the compactor on board. Since ships are normallyin a shipyard for three-month periods, installation caneasily be completed during that time. Any industrialshipyard can accomplish the fitting.

What has been done: A prototype has been built andtested at the David Taylor Research Center inAnnapolis, Maryland. The prototype is now being testedon a destroyer class vessel.

What needs to be done: The prototype, alreadyinstalled on the USS O'Bannon (a destroyer), is beingfield/sea tested for six months. This will be followedby six months of technical evaluation, plus anadditional six months of operational evaluation.Procurement will require an additional year resultingin initial installation during the fall of 1990 (theseare best case time estimates for this and the followinganalyses; times could likely be shortened somewhat, butprobably at far greater costs). Destroyers will beoutfitted first, with installation dependent on shipavailability.

17i

.ii

Time frame: Five years to completely outfit all Naval

vessels once the unit is mass produced.

Resvonsibility: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

Cost Estimate:

Research and Development: $ 1 million tocomplete.

Acquisition: $62 millionInstallation: $68 million

Priority: High

I 2. Plastic Waste Processor

Justification: The Plastic Waste Processor (PWP) willdeal specifically with all plastic waste. It willfunction much like a trash compactor containing abuilt-in heating/melting unit. Compressed plastic willbe melted, then cooled into small, solid, sterileplastic bricks for later land-based disposal orpossible recycling. The sterile bricks of plastic willresult in easier storage, handling, and off-loading.

" I There is a need for this machine, especially on boardlarge combatants, tenders, and carriers because of thelarge volume of waste generated and limited storagespace. Use of the PWP will result in tremendous volumereduction of plastic -- a major problem with such itemsas bubble wrap. The processor will also sterilizeplastic food wrap, eliminating a major health hazard

and over-riding health concern.

What has been done: Engineering and design of aprototype has begun.

What needs to be done: After the design of a processorthat will accept all plastic, a prototype will bebuilt with testing, evaluation, production, andinstallation. The PWP should be fully automated.

I Tijnfrme:Research and Development: 3-4 years Fiveadditional years to completely outfit all largesurface ships once the unit is mass produced.

Responsibility: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

I Cost Estimate:Research and Development $11 millionAcquisition $50 million

Installation $46 million

18

.'4I

I

Priority: High

3. Enhanced Degradable Packing Materials

Justification: Since the physical qualities ofplastics are extremely desirable -- durable,waterproof, lightweight, bacteria-resistent, etc. -- ifnon-plastic alternatives can be developed whichpossess similar qualities and are not persistent, butwill allow overboard disposal, then part of theplastics problem will be solved.

Development of enhanced degradable packing materials(EDPM) could help solve much of the Navy's plasticwaste stream problem if the Navy can convince industry

to adopt alternative packaging practices. Work in thisarea could actually enhance the Navy's ability toleverage industry to develop and use EDPM's.

What has been done: The Navy recently signed acontract with Research Triangle Institute (RTI), NorthCarolira to continue work on developing degradableplastics, and to test commercially available productswhich may be of use to the Navy (e.g., 100%biodegradable cellulose cellophane, cardboards).

What needs to be done: RTI should continue testingexisting commercially available products, and shouldattempt to develop a degradable plastic-like productwhich may be used on board ships as a substitute forconventional plastics.

i Time frame:

Research and Development phase: 2-7 years(because of the many unknowns with this type ofexploratory development program).

Responsibility: Office of Naval Technology.

f Cost Estimate: $2 million over 2-7 years.

P: High

4. Solid Waste Pulver

Justification: The solid waste pulper (SWP) will dealprimarily with the paper waste stream, acting as a costand labor-saving device for eliminating paper.Incidental to its operation, the SWP will separate

rplastic from paper, allowing for removal of plasticfrom the pulper (e.g., plastic liners in paper bags,

4 19

I

Iancidental plastic disposal). Paper waste will bedirectly discharged into the ocean eliminating the needto hand-carry some paper to the compactor and/orfantail. The paper plugs generated by the pulper willbe small, easily biodegradable, wet, and negatively orneutrally buoyant. In this form, the waste is expectedto deteriorate quickly in the marine environment.

The SWP will deal specifically with the paper wastestream, acting as a tremendous labor-saving device.Environmental deterioration/degradation of the paperwill be greatly enhanced by size reduction and thewetting of paper waste. Crew involvement in waste

elimination should be considerably lessened.

What has been done: A development contract has beenawarded to Somat Corporation, Pomeroy, Pennsylvania. Ademonstration model has been developed.

What needs to be done: Development should be carriedout in four phases:

1. Field/sea testing and evaluation of thepulper.

2. Construction of a preproduction model.

3. Construction of a production model tobe installed, tested, evaluated, andreadied for commercial production.

4. Commercial manufacture and installationon all larger surface ships.

I Time frame:Research and Development: 3-4 years.Production and installation - onto larger surfaceships: 5-7 years. (Production and installationare budget driven. Research and development canbe accelerated, installation cannot.)

Responsibilitf: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

Cost Estimate:Research and Development $ 4 millionProduction/acquisition $20 millionInstallation $48 million

IPriority: Medium

20

_ _ _

!5. Thermal Destruction Device

Justification: The thermal destruction device (TDD),as it presently exists, is a large, but trailerable,plasma-arc heating unit which produces temperaturesthrough electrical arc generation greater than 5,000degrees Fahrenheit. Large quantities of electricityare needed to create temperatures high enough tovaporize waste products. Existing equipment is nowbeing used for soil pyrolysis decontamination.

Newly emerging thermal destruction devices have apotential to solve part of the Navy's plastic wasteproblem particularly on larger ships with crews ofmore than 600 people. Some emerging TDD's hold promisein providing safe destruction of trash; however, nonehave been fully tested to demonstrate environmentalacceptability, particularly for burning plastic trash.I The TDD would be particularly useful at foreign portswhere countries are not willing to accept Navy waste.

I Use of the TDD would remove Navy dependence on inshorewaste facilities, at least on larger ships in which itwould be installed. Any TDD technology must meet allof the requirements of the Ocean Dumping Act. All TDDsystems should meet Clean Air Act standards for similarland based systems to maintain high environmental andhuman health standards.

What has been done: An available technical assessmenthas been completed by the Navy. The Navy continues toidentify pyrolysis and plasmolysis technologies whichmay be potentially scaled down.

What needs to be done: Industry should be contacted todetermine possible interest in the project. Analysesof engineering and feasibility should to be conducted.A scaled down model should be designed and built.This would lead to the design and production of a full-scale model. The Navy needs to scale down such amachine; although, scaling them down will reduce thethroughput capacity (pounds per hour of burnables).Design and construction of a TDD is a highly technicalissue, requiring answers to a number of technicalissues including: materials issues, heat expansion,corrosion, weight, available energy, and exhaustemissions.

Research and Development: 5-7 yearsInstallation: 5-7 additional years to completely

I outfit all larger surface shipsonce unit is mass produced.

[ 21

I

I Responsibility: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

Cost Estimate:Research and Development: $10 millionAcquisition: Cannot estimateInstallation: Cannot estimate

Priority: Medium

6. Dedicated Garbage Barge

Justification: The dedicated garbage barge would serveas a ship-towed barge specifically designed to haulplastic and other wastes in special use areas (e.g.,the Antarctic, near-shore operations).

What has been done: No action. Creation of a fleet ofdedicated garbage ships is feasible. However, theremay be problems in obtaining acceptance of waste bythese ships in foreign countries. Economic incentives-- separated waste (metal, glass, paper) for recycling-- may increase the likelihood of foreign acceptance ofNavy waste.

What needs to be done: Evaluate the cost of developinga fleet. Identify where there may be a need for thisservice. Explore land-based disposal options in onefleet to determine the feasibility. Compare costs ofthis option with other alternatives in the long term.

1~Timefraj: Long term.

Responsibility: Fleet Command.

Cost Estimate: $10's of millions.

I P: Low

2

[, [ 22

Ii

IV. OPERATIONS

Operational responses to the plastic problem on board Navy shipsfocus primarily on altering routine practices for dealing withplastic trash to facilitate: (I) reductions in the amount ofplastic used and brought on board the ships; and (2) separationand stowage of plastic for proper offloading.

In most cases, operational responses do not require thedevelopment of new technology or changes in procurementpractices. For that reason, many of the operationsrecommendations can be instituted immediately and will result inan immediate reduction in the amount of plastic discharged atsea. The cost estimates associated with each recommendation areapproximate because many of the recommended actions regardingoperations primarily involve human resource costs. Althoughthese costs may be quantified in hours of labor expended,.otherhuman resource costs (e.g., morale) are virtually impossible toquantify.

Recommendations in this section are prioritized based on thecontribution each recommended action will have on reducing theamount of plastic brought on board ship and the extent to whicheach recommended action will facilitate elimination of the needfor plastic discharge. Generally, success in achieving thefirst three recommendations in this section will determine thedegree to which all other recommendations in the Operationssection of the report will need to be pursued.

A. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Prior to leaving port, the maximum amount of packingmaterials and other plastic trash should be offloadedfrom ships.

2. Separate plastic trash.

3. Store plastic trash for offloading.

4. Consider storage of used plastic wrapping from foods inclosed container in freezer.

5. Locate plastic waste receptacle on fantail of ship orother trash discharge location.

6. Until full compliance is achieved, determine "noplastic discharge zones" for each class of ship.

7. Initiate conservation and reuse/recycling policies on ashipwide basis, especially target shipping andreceiving areas.

23

iI4

(!t

8. Eliminate plastic liner in trash can.

9. All Commanding Officers should require that, whereverpossible, plastic items (e.g., coffee cups, coffeestirrers) be replaced with non-plastic items and thatdisposable items used on board ship be replaced withreusable items (e.g., disposable aprons, gloves, drycleaning bags).

10. Designate Environmental Officer (on collateral duty)for each ship to integrate responsibility for allenvironmental systems, including collection, holdingand transfer (sewage) system, hazardousmaterials/hazardous waste systems and trash disposal.

11. Determine capacity for storage of plastic trash foreach class of ship, beginning with demonstration ship.

12. Evaluate the feasibility of sanitizing plastic trashand subsequent storage on board ship.

1.3. Until full compliance is achieved and the Act takeseffect for Navy vessels, each vessel should maintain aship's log for recording all discharges of trash. TheNavy should develop a system for using this data tomeasure progress in achieving compliance with thelegislation.

14. Evaluate storeroom designs and operating procedures to1facilitate storage of plastic trash.

15. Evaluate use of supply ship for offloading of certainplastic trash, pallets and reusable items or materials(e.g., sonabuoy cases).

16. On ships equipped with compactors, consider compactingplastic material separate from all other waste.

17. Provide bulk dispensers for commonly used productspackaged in personal sized plastic containers.

18. Study the feasibility of hiring a private contractor tocollect trash at sea from Navy vessels operating inselected areas.


1. Prior to leaving port, the maximum amount of Packingmaterials and other plastic trash should be offloadedfrom ships.

24II

Justification: This will minimize the amount ofplastic generated for disposal. The degree to whichthe Navy can minimize the amount of plastic brought onI board the ship will have a significant effect on itsability to eliminate the discharge of plastic waste at

g sea.

What has been done: In some instances, this practicealready exists. In addition, Atlantic Fleet shipshave already been instructed to attempt to institutethis practice.

What needs to be done: Issue an instruction toimplement this practice in all instances.

Time frame: Institute immediately.

1Responsibility: Navy chain of command.

Cost Estimate: Low

Priority: High

2. Separate plastic trash.

Separate plastic trash from other trash at source onmess decks and other main collection sites. Keepplastic trash, which is contaminated with food residue,separate from plastic trash which is not contaminated.Achieve through use of dual trash receptacles or multi-compartmented trash receptacle.

Justification: This will provide a basic first stepfor separate handling and disposal of plastic trashwithout added labor cost. It will reinforce awareness

of the problem at all levels.

I What has been done: Atlantic Fleet ships have alreadybeen instructed to attempt to institute this practice.

What needs to be done: Equip collection sites withsuitable receptacles. Institute instruction toIseparate plastic trash.Time frame: Institute immediately.

I Responsibility: Navy chain of command down through theindividual level.

Cost Estimate: Low

i 25

I

Priority: High

3. Store Plastic trash for offloading.

Store for offloading plastic trash which is notcontaminated with food residues. Until full compliancecan be achieved, to greatest extent practicable, storefor offloading plastic trash which is contaminated withfood residue.

Justification: This will facilitate the ultimate goalof land disposal of plastic trash. The larger theamount of plastic that can be stored, the less the needto manage the plastic in some other way or discharge.

What has been done: Atlantic Fleet ships have alreadybeen instructed to attempt to institute this practice.

What needs to be done: Issue instructions to store

plastic trash in designated areas.


Responsibility: Navy chain of command.

Cost Estimate: Low - Medium.

Priority: High

4. Consider storage of used plastic wrappina from foods inclosed container in freezer.

Justification: Re-freezing of plastic trashcontaminated with food residue will eliminate healthhazards and provide sanitary storage until the plasticcan be offloaded for proper disposal. Management ofplastic contaminated with food residue is expected tobe a major concern because a large percentage of theplastic brought on board ship is used as foodpackaging.


What needs to be done: Determine safety of such

storage from public health perspective. Issueinstruction to food preparation personnel to re-freezeused plastic from foods products.

Time frame: Make determination prior to initiating

26

II

I

demonstration ship program and, if appropriate, test ondemonstration ship.

Responsibility: Approval by Navy Environmental andPreventive Medicine Command. Implement through Navychain of command.

j Cost Estimate: Low

Priority: High

5. Locate vlastic waste receptacle on fantail of ship orother trash discharge location.

Justification: This will facilitate retention ofplastic trash by providing last opportunity forcollection.


What needs to be done: Provide ships with receptacles.Issue instruction to retain plastic at point ofdischarge.


Resvonsibility: Navy chain of command down throughthe individual level.

Cost Estimate: Low

Priority: High

6. Until full compliance is achieved, determine "noPlastic discharge zones" for each class of ship.

Such zones would be areas in which no plastic trashcould be discharged. The boundaries of the zones wouldbe determined by the storage capacity of each class ofship within a time frame that enables that class ofship to travel from the offshore edge of the zone toport. Since Navy vessels are currently prohibited fromdischarging trash within 25 miles of the coast, a "noplastic discharge zone" would extend that prohibitionfor plastics to a greater distance from shore for thoseships with additional storage capacity.

Justification: This will facilitate the retention onboard of a larger quantity of plastic than mightotherwise be maintained. Minimizes to a limited extentthe shoreline impact of discharged plastic.

27

I.<1 4.

What has been done: Atlantic Fleet ships have alreadybeen instructed to attempt to institute this practice.

What needs to be done: Determine the appropriate "noplastic discharge zone" for each class of vessel.Zones could be defined by "hours from port"t or

"distance from port" (whichever is further from shore).Issue an instruction to implement the "no plasticdischarge zone".

Time frame: Determine "no plastic discharge zone" foreach class of vessel within three months; implementimmediately thereafter.

I Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operations and/or Fleet

Command.

I Cost Estimate: Low

Priority: High

1 7. Initiate conservation and reuse/recycling Policies on ashipwide basis, especially target shipping and

I receiving areas.

Includes requirement that plastic be stored in worki area for purposes of reuse or recycling.

Justification: This will ensure that reuse orrecycling efforts are carried out wherever feasible andwill minimize the amount of plastic trash that must beoffloaded for land disposal.

IWhat has been done: No action.

What needs to be done: Issue instruction to recycleplastic waste wherever possible.

I Timefram: Institute immediately.


Cost Estimate: Low

I Priorit: High

8. Eliminate plastic liner in trash can.

I If necessary, replace metal trash cans with speciallycoated receptacles to facilitate ease of disposal and

I cleaning; install specially coated trash chute on

|1 28

LI

fantail or other discharge location to facilitatedischarge of trash without use of plastic.

Justification: Minimize discharge of plastic or otherwaste material into the sea.


What needs to be done: Investigate feasibility ofusing receptacles without liners -- if only in selectedareas. If necessary, procure new or additionalreceptacles.

Time frame: Evaluate feasibility on demonstrationship.


Cost Estimate: Low - Medium

Priority: High

9. All Commandinx Officers should require that. whereverpossible, plastic items (e.g.. coffee cups. coffeestirrers) be replaced with non-plastic items and thatdisposable items used on board shiP be replaced withreusable items (e.g.. disposable aprons, gloves, dryj cleaninx bats).

Justification: This will minimize the amount ofI plastic trash generated on board ship.

What has been done: Atlantic Fleet ships have alreadybeen instructed to attempt to institute aspects of thispractice.

What needs to be done: Complete evaluation and, onthat basis, Navy should notify suppliers of needs andinstitute use on board ship.

Ti fra: Begin evaluation immediately for testingon demonstration ships.

Responsibility: Naval Supply Systems Command andCommanding Officers.

Cost Estimate: Low - Medium (depending on item)

I Prioity: High

I29

'i

10. Designate Environmental Officer (on collateral duty)for each ship to integrate responsibility for allenvironmental systems, including collection, holdingand transfer (sewage) system. hazardousmaterials/hazardous waste systems and trash disposal.

Justification: Effective pollution control can best beI achieved if an officer is delegated responsibility for

that task. The importance of pollution control will begreatly enhanced by the designation of such an officer.Dedicated effort to address pollution systems in a morecomprehensive way is necessitated by increasinglegislative requirements over the years for all wastedisposal activities. The technology applied to thesesystems is more advanced and complex and crosses manydisciplines. A high level of expertise and

coordination is required to comply with legislativeI mandates.


What needs to be done: Concept paper drafted by theChief of Naval Operations staff.

ITime frame: Submit concept paper within three months.Process within one year.


Cost Estimate: Medium

Priorit: High

11. Determine capacity for storage of plastic trash foreach class of ship. beginning with demonstration ship.

Justification: This will provide a basis fordetermining the ability of the ship to store plastictrash for offloading, and the consequent need tofurther minimize onloading of plastic, or the need forspecial equipment. Sets a standard to be achieved byeach ship.


What needs to be done: Each class of ship must besurveyed to identify potentially available storage

Ispace. Such space should be allocated for storage ofplastics on board demonstration ships to evaluate itssuitability for storage.

Ii 30

I

Time frame: Begin survey immediately for applicationto demonstration ships.

Responsibility: David Taylor Naval Research Center (as

part of the Ship Waste Plastics Control DemonstrationProject).


Priority: High

1 12. Evaluate the feasibility of sanitizing plastic trash

and subsequent storage on board ship,

IExplore possibilities for sanitizing plastic trash onboard ship (e.g., steam cleaning, flushing withseawater).

I Justification: Long-term storage of plastic

contaminated with food residue poses potential healthproblems and such plastic, therefore, requires specialtreatment or handling. The benefits of implementingthis recommendation will be proportional to thepercentage of plastic trash contaminated with foodresidue. Since this percentage is expected to be quitehigh, the benefit of pursuing this course of action isalso expected to be high. The Keystone Centeracknowledges that this approach may be labor intensive,Ibut believes it presents an important opportunity toreduce marine plastic pollution and deserves the Navy's

I attention.

What has been done: The feasibility of sanitizingl plastic trash is currently being evaluated as part of

the Ship Waste Plastics Control Demonstration Projectconducted by the David Taylor Naval Research Center.

What needs to be done: Data should be gathered todetermine: (1) the extent of the need (volume ofplastic) for special equipment or measures; (2) thefeasibility of instituting operational measures orinstalling equipment; (3) the effectiveness of suchmeasures or equipment.

f Tjne-frat: Initiate efforts immediately and identifyany suitable operational measures within one year. Ifspecial equipment is needed, adjust time frame inaccordance with the nature of the equipment.

Responsibility: David Taylor Research Center for ShipWaste Plastics Control Demonstration Project onI sanitization.

131

iII

Cost Estimate: Low capital cost; potentially highcosts depending on labor requirements and the need forspecial equipment.

Priority: High

13. Until full compliance is achieved and the Act takeseffect for Navy vessels, each vessel should maintain aship's log for recording all discharges of trash. TheNavy should develop a system for using this data tomeasure nroxress in achieving compliance with thelegislation.

Record of all discharge of trash should include anannotation as to whether plastic waste was discharged.The Navy should develop a data collection system and a

regular reporting mechanism to utilize the informationco]lected and integrate information in the Navy'sannual report to Congress.

Justification: This provides the basis for measuringprogress in achieving compliance with the legislation.Currently, the Navy has no system to collect such data

I and report on progress made to Congress. This willprovide valuable information about plastic trashgenerated on board Navy vessels.


What needs to be done: Commanding Officers shouldissue instructions to maintain a log of plastic wastedischarge and the Navy should establish a system for

i measuring compliance with the legislation.


Resionsibility: Navy chain of command.

Cost Estimate: Low

Iii: High

14. Evaluate storeroom designs and operating Procedures tofacilitate storage of vlastic trash.

Evaluate storeroom designs and operating procedures(such as the potential for more effective use ofceiling spaces and storage in shipping/receiving areas;backfilling plastics behind active stock; the use ofmechanical shelving units for storage of supplies

32

• -r

iIand/or plastic trash, etc.) to determine whether thecurrent system can be altered.

Justification: This facilitates efficient use of spacefor storage of plastic trash without impeding accessthat might otherwise remain unused.

( What has been done: No action.

What needs to be done: Initiate evaluation.

Time frame: Initiate evaluation immediately.

Resvonsibility: Naval Supply Systems Command (FittingOut and Supply Support Assistance Center).


IPrijrit: Medium (depends on storage capacity)

15. Evaluate use of supply ship for offloading of certainPlastic trash. Pallets and reusable items or materials(e.f.. sonabuoy cases).

Justification: Using supply ships to offload plastictrash has limitations. However, they may provide auseful option in selected situations -- especially forclasses of ships where there is minimal storagecapacity for plastics or reclamation of reusables.The benefits of implementing this recommendation willvary greatly by class of ship.

What has been done: The Navy has undertaken anevaluation of the use of supply ships for offloadingall plastic trash.

What needs to be done: Evaluate the use of supplyships for offloading of limited kinds/quantities ofplastic trash, or offloading plastic trash undercertain specified circumstances (e.g., ship has been atsea for extended period of time, to service ships which

have minimal storage capacity). Identify target itemsfor potential offloading to supply ships (e.g.,sonabuoy cases).

Time frame: One year for completion of evaluation.

Responsibility: Type Commanders Combat Logistics ForceI Staff.

Cost Estimate: Medium -High

33

I _ _ _ _ _ _

I

16. On ships equipped with compactors, consider compactinaplastic material separate from all other waste.

Justification: Compactor will reduce the volume ofplastic for storage. Plastic trash contaminated withfood residue poses a potential health hazard requiringspecial storage considerations.

f !What has been done: No action.

What needs to be done: Once compactor has beeninstalled, issue appropriate instructions.

Time frame: Immediately for demonstration ship andimmediately upon installation of compactor for allother vessels.

Responsibility: Operators of compactors.


Priority: Medium.

17. Provide bulk dispensers for commonly used productsPackaged in Personal sized plastic containers.

Justification: This will eliminate the overall numberand variety of small plastic items in need of disposal.


1 What needs to be done: Identify items that may bedispensed in bulk; investigate bulk procurement ofidentified items; test on demonstration ship.

Time frame: Immediately for testing on demonstrationships.

Responsibility: Naval Supply Systems Command (NavyResale and Services Support Office)

Cost Estimate: Medium-High

Priority: Medium

II

18. Study the feasibility of hiring a private contractor tocollect trash at sea from Navy vessels operating inselected areas.

I Specifically investigate the use of private contractorfor collecting recyclable materials and plastic trashin selected areas (e.g., offshore of the U.S., Europe).

Justification: In the long term, the Navy may benefitfrom contracting out for collection of trash,especially recyclables such as aluminum and glass thatmay substantially increase in value in the future.


What needs to be done: Feasibility study.

j Time frame: Feasibility study completed in threeyears.

Responsibility: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Cost Estimate: Medium - High

Priority: Low (in the short term).

3

I!II

I.

35mm

1

V. EDUCATION

In the next few months, the U.S. Navy will test new equipment andshipboard practices to prevent the disposal of plastic trash atsea. Ultimately, such procedures and equipment will come intouse throughout the fleet. For these efforts to be successful,crew members and others must understand the basis for theseactions. They must be made aware of the fact that the Navy has aCongressional mandate to comply with the provisions of Annex V ofthe MARPOL Treaty within the next five years, and moreimportantly, they need to understand the reasons for thismandate. Navy crew members and others need to learn about theproblems caused by the disposal of plastics in the marineenvironment, including the threat plastics pose to marinewildlife and must be informed about how they can become part of

I the solution.

A program that explains these and other aspects of the marinedebris problem are essential to the success of the Navy's plan toreduce the disposal of plastic trash in the marine environment.Changes in attitudes and behaviors of naval personnel willdetermine whether the Navy's plan will be successful, and suchchanges can only be achieved through a well coordinated educationplan.

The development of education programs must evolve relative tochanges in supply, operations and technology. Therefore,although a general time frame has been assigned to therecommendations in this section, education activities should bedeveloped along with the Navy's general plan to address thisproblem. Ideally, all of the following recommendations,

| particularly those pertaining to ships, should be appliedfleetwide by 1993. However, all educational materials andmethods developed for the Navy should be periodically reviewedand updated to maintain their effectiveness.

At this time, it is also difficult to estimate costs for many ofthe following recommendations. Many activities will only involvethe costs of time spent by Navy personnel. In addition, thebenefits of such recommendations, in terms of overall plasticwaste reduction, cannot be measured at this time. However, asnoted above, without some attempt to inform and educate navalpersonnel about the plastic debris problem and the Navy's plan toaddress this problem, their cooperation cannot be fully achieved.

The following recommendations suggest ways the Navy canincorporate education into its plan to reduce the disposal ofplastics in the marine environment. Priority has been assignedto each recommendation based on the order in which each taskshould be addressed and the importance of each task relative toother recommendations in this section.

[ 36

I

A. SUMMARY OF EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Information on the plastic debris problem and theNavy's plan to address this problem should bedisseminated to all levels of the Navy.

2. Educational materials on the plastic debris probem andthe Navy's plan to address this problem should bedeveloped for ships, naval supply centers, and officesinvolved in procurement.

3. Every Navy vessel should use an education packagecomposed of several key elements.

4. The effectiveness of education efforts on ships shouldbe assessed through a survey.

5. The Navy should use the Environmental Award as a meansto recognize ships that are outstanding in theirefforts to reduce plastic wastes.

6. Naval vessels should consider sponsoring shipboardcontests on plastics reduction methods.


1. Information on the plastic debris Problem and theNavy's Rlan to address this Rroblem should be

I~ disseminated to all levels of the Navy.

Justification: Cooperation at all levels will beneeded if the Navy's plan to reduce plastic debris isto be successful. For example, those who must beginprocedures to minimize the amount of plastics insupply, those who must take precautions in separatingplastic wastes from the ship's waste stream, and thosewho will be in charge of supervising these efforts andallocating funds for these projects need to know whysuch measures are important. The initial process ofsensitizing Navy personnel to the issue of plasticdebris will facilitate the acceptance of later stepstaken by the Navy to address this problem. Regularupdates on the Navy's progress will help maintaininterest. The eventual development of programs to beincorporated in training programs will help to prepareNavy personnel about what they will be required to doto reduce plastic waste disposal at sea.

i • What has been done: Only a small segment of ,he Navy,

I including personnel who have been involved with the

|3

.....!WW .

development of this report, have been introduced to theplastic debris issue. Broad-based information andeducation activities have not yet taken place.

What needs to be done:

Phase I: The Navy must begin to disseminateinformation on the plastic debris issue through variousmedia including the Navy Times, Navy News This Week,the Armed Forces Information Service and other generalavenues. These efforts should emphasize that:1) plastics pose a threat in the marine environment;2) Congress has directed the Navy to come intocompliance with Annex V within the next five years,and; 3) the Navy has made a commitment to reduceplastic disposal at sea and is developing a plan tocarry this out, and intends to pursue this effort withNavy pride in leadership. In addition, informationshould be provided on what other marine user groups,such as the commercial fishing and merchant shippingindustries, are doing to reduce plastic disposal atsea.

Phase II: Information on the results of test ships,technological developments, and other progress toreduce plastic disposal at sea should be disseminatedto Navy personnel, through the media discussed above.

Phase III: Information on the plastic debris problemand what the Navy has done to address this problemshould be included in boot camp training, Officer'sCandidate School, Navy ROTC programs, the Navy Academyand other avenues.

Time frame: The above information/education processshould commence immediately and be a continuing processthereafter.

Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operation, Chief ofNaval Education and Training, Fleet Commander and

J Chiefs.

Cost Estimate: Staff time to write articles fordistribution to Navy media.

Priority: High

2. Educational materials on the plastic debris problemand the Navy's Plan to address this Problem should bedeveloped for ships. Naval Supply Centers and officesinvolved in procurement.

38

'!

Justification: Navy ships, supply centers and officesinvolved in procurement will be most affected by theNavy's plan. Therefore, educational materials shouldbe developed specifically for these groups.

What has been done: The development of an educationprogram for Navy vessels, supply offices and officesinvolved with procurement began in May, 1988.


Phase I: Since the Navy will be using several ships totest new supply, operation and technological strategiesto address the plastic debris problem, these shipsshould also test educational efforts for crew members.Any form of education would have to coincide with other

matters being tested on the ship so that sailors arenot confused by suggestions that are beyond theircontrol or the ability of the test ship. In addition,emphasis should be given to promoting plasticsawareness with those officers who will be overseeingplastic waste reduction programs.

Education efforts should include information on theproblem, what is being done to address the problem, andwhat individual ships and their crew members can do tohelp. Information on entanglement in and ingestion ofplastics by marine life should be included in additionto other problems caused by plastics such as aestheticdegradation and vessel disablement. Materials shouldconvey that this is a global problem (include examplesof plastics accumulating even in remote areas ofAntarctica, etc.). (See Recommendation #3 for list ofspecific educational materials to be used on boardships.)

The Naval Supply Centers and offices involved withprocurement for these test ships should also be used asmodels for the development of educational materials.In this case, informative and attractive posters wouldbe useful. It is suggested that the poster "Our Ocean.It's Drowning.", developed by the National MarineFisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research Program,be used. This poster could be framed and permanentlymounted. However, an alternative poster should bedeveloped for these offices.

All materials should be low-keyed, professional andsincere. The primary purpose of education is toexplain why it is important to prevent the disposal of

* plastics in the marine environment and what anindividual can do to become part of the solution.

| 39

,4£ I

I

Phase II: Once educational materials have proved to besuccessful on test ships and model Navy supply andprocurement offices (see recommendation 44), thesematerials should be produced for fleetwidedistribution.

J Time frame: By December 1988, the Navy shouldfinalize development of materials that will be used forwidespread distribution and begin production of thesematerials.

Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operations, SystemsCommands, Fleet Commander and Chiefs.

Cost Estimate: Printing and staff time to overseedevelopment and implementation of education plan.

Priority: High

3. Every Navy vessel should use an education packagecomposed of several elements.

Justification: Navy vessels are a direct source ofplastic wastes. Therefore, the greatest amount ofeffort in terms of education should be placed oneducating crew members. Educational materials shouldinform crew members about the problem and what they arerequired to do on board. Materials, such as videoannouncements, posters, bumper stickers, and placardsprovide a long-term mechanism for reinforcement ofthese ideas.


What needs to be done: The following materials shouldbe developed for inclusion in an education package,jI listed in order of priority:

a. Fact Sheet -- It is important to prepare a factsheet (2-3 pages in length) on the problem for thosethat will have to answer questions from crew members,or for those that just want to know more.

b. "Plan of the Day" Announcements -- Each shipprints and posts its own "Plan of the Day" which is atype of newsletter. When a ship is at sea, this isoften one of the only forms of outside informationavailable to a sailor. The Navy should distributeinformation on plastics to all ships and request thatit be printed in the "Plan of the Day". This shouldconsist of a series of very brief articles on the

40

ii

subject that should be printed in the Plan at regularintervals. This information would have to be short (2-5 lines per issue), informative and interesting. Thesecan easily be taken from the above fact sheet orarticles produced in Recommendation #1.

c. Video -- A video program (8-10 minutes) should beshown before full-length movies, or incorporated intoshort training sessions. Such a video would give

information on the problems caused by the disposal ofplastics in the marine environment followed by anexplanation of what their ship is doing to reduce thedisposal of plastics at sea and what individual crewmembers should do as part of these efforts.

The Navy has a special unit that makes videos, theNaval Imaging Command. To expedite the production ofthis video, The Keystone Center is investigating theavailability of video footage on the plastic debrisproblem from contractors of the National MarineFisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research Programand local television stations. Such footage could beused and adapted to meet a Navy audience.

d. Video Announcements -- In addition to the videodescribed above, short video announcements (30 secondsto one minute in duration) should be produced and shownat regular intervals on board ships. Theseannouncements would explain a specific problem causedby plastics in the marine environment. Four such*1 jvideos should be produced with the following messages:

(1) Plastic debris harms marine wildlife--Describe the harmful effects of plastic debris onmarine wildlife due to entanglement in andingestion of plastics.

(2) Plastic debris is a persistent eyesore--Describe the aesthetic degradation of shorelinesand the open ocean caused by the accumulation ofplastic debris. Emphasize the fact that plasticsare different than other types of trash because oftheir light weight, strength and durability.

(3) Plastic debris poses a threat to navigation-- Describe the problems of vessel disablementcaused by plastic debris such as ropes, lines,bags and sheeting that can foul props and clogcooling water intakes and evaporators. This is aproblem for all seafarers (naval, commercial,

I recreational, etc.).

41

I

(4) Plastic debris is a matter of reputation andsailors should "take pride" in what they are doingto combat this problem -- The public and othersare becoming increasingly aware of the specificsources of plastic debris and to what degree thesesources are attempting to reduce theircontribution to this problem. The Navy is takinga lead role in finding practical solutions to thisproblem -- solutions that are not just applicableto Navy, but solutions that will assist all marinevessels and user groups in finding ways to reduceplastic waste disposal at sea.

e. Posters - Posters should be placed in key areas ofthe ship where plastics are generated and discarded.These posters should be art work of an entangled animalwith a short caption (i.e., Picture: of sea turtlewith plastic bag in mouth. Caption: "A vessel tossedout some garbage and killed this turtle"). Four suchposters should be developed with the followingpictures:

(1) sea turtle with plastic bag in mouth(2) seal with plastic strapping band around neck(3) fish entangled in plastic six-pack ring(4) bird either entangled or with plastic in

stomach

It should be noted, however, that in certain areas suchas dining halls, the posters described above may not beappropriate.

f. Mounted Display - A display using pictures withwritten captions should be developed and used on boardlarger ships. This display should show examples of the

impact of plastics on marine wildlife and provideinformation on what is being done on board a ship toprevent plastic disposal at sea.

. Bumper Stickers on Operational Guidance--Stickers that remind sailors not to throw plasticsoverboard should be posted in prime areas of the shipsuch as on garbage cans, in the galley, mess halls andsupply rooms.

h. Placard -- A placard, similar to those pertainingto oil discharges, should be posted at the station ofthe Duty Officer. This placard should notify the crewof the requirements of Annex V. The U.S. Coast Guardis presently designing such placards for commercial andrecreational vessels.

42

t

Time frame: Educational materials should be used firston test ships. Materials for fleetwide distributionshould be finalized and ready for production byDecember 1988.

I Responsibility: Fleet Commander and Chiefs

Cost Estimate: Development and production of materialsand staff time.

Priority: High

4. The effectiveness of education efforts on ships shouldbe assessed through a survey.

Justification: Well written surveys will indicatewhether educational efforts are effective and help inthe development of a strong education plan.

I What has been done: No action.


Phase I: Crew members on board test ships should begiven a "pre-test" survey before educational materialsare used to determine the level of awareness of theproblems caused by plastic debris and general feelingstoward preventing the disposal of plastics at sea(e.g., do they think it is a problem to dispose ofplastics at sea, how would they respond if asked toI separate and store plastic trash on board for disposalin p6rt). The results of this survey would beevaluated against a "post-test" survey to determinewhether attitudes and behaviors were changed due toeducational efforts. In addition, crew members wouldbe encouraged to evaluate the materials used (what didthey like, dislike, need more of, need less of, etc.).

Phase II: Once educational efforts are appliedfleetwide, spot check surveys should be conductedperiodically to provide a regular check on theeffectiveness of educational materials and methods inorder to determine where changes are necessary.

Tine frame: Begin development of surveys for testships immediately. Surveys fo: distribution fleetwideshould be completed by December 1993.

Responsibility: Chief of Naval Operations, Chief ofNaval Education and Training, Fleet Commander andChiefs.

43

, -.

Cost Estimate: Staff time to design survey and compileand analyze results.

Priority: High

5. The Navy should use the Environmental Award as a meansto recognize ships that are outstanding in theirefforts to reduce plastic wastes.

Justification: Awards offer an additional incentive tocomply with the task of reducing plastic disposal atsea. For very little cost and effort, theEnvironmental Award will provide the Navy a means toreward ships that are outstanding in their efforts toreduce plastic debris and will offer the Navy anadditional opportunity to assess its efforts to addressthe problem. In addition, it will provide means forthe Navy to publicize its success both within the Navyand to outside groups.

What has been done: Each year, the Navy gives anEnvironmental Award to one small ship and one largeship. Winning ships fly the white and greenenvironmental flag.

What needs to be done: Preventing discharges ofplastic waste should become a criterion for theEnvironmental Award, and ships that are outstanding intheir efforts should be rewarded.

Time frame: To be implemented in 1990.


Cost Estimate: Staff time of those who administer theEnvironmental Award.

Prijity: Medium

6. Naval vessels should consider sponsoring shipboardcontests on ilastics reduction methods.

Justification: Contests offer an additional means ofeducation and help to create incentives for sailors toreduce plastic waste disposal at sea.


What needs to be done: Each ship should considerconducting a contest on plastic reduction methods amongall departments of the ship. Contests could also be

444.' -

Iconducted between different ships of the same class.The group or ship that is most outstanding in theirefforts could be given a suitable reward to bedetermined by Navy staff.

Time frame: Contests could begin on test ships in1988. By 1990, this should be encouraged fleetwide.

Responsibility: Fleet Commander and Chiefs

Cost Estimate: Staff time

Priority: Medium

cf36ml20a

4IIIIF1I

45

APPENDIX A

INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED IN REPORT PREPARATION

Craig AligIHead, Environmental Protection BranchDavid Taylor Research CenterDepartment of the NavyAnnapolis, Maryland 21402(301) 267-3526

Commander Ron BeachyLegal Advisor to Committee ChairHead, Environmental Law BranchInternational Law Division

Office of the Judge Advocate GeneralDepartment of the Navy200 Stovall StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22332(202) 697-5406/9161

Barbara BrittenWashington RepresentativeAmerican Cetacean Society1300 South Arlington Ridge Road #614Arlington, Virginia 22202(703) 920-0076

| I Lieutenant Commander Mike ChaplainI Surface Combatant Branch

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations(OP-321D4)Department of the NavyWashington, D.C. 20350-2000(202) 697-5281/5282

I Commander Fred ChittyDirector, Supply Operations and Policy

Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet (N4211)

Department of the NavyNorfolk, Virginia 23511-6001(804) 444-6852/6222

Penny DaltonProfessional Staff MemberSenate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

United States SenateSH-427 HSOBWashington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-9360

!I

Gina DeFerrariProfessional StaffHouse Merchant Marine and Fisheries CommitteeSubcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation

and the EnvironmentUnited States House of Representatives

H2-543 House Office Building - Annex IIWashington, D.C. 20515(202) 226-3533

Commander Don Hempson

Director, Supply SupportOffice of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy(Shipbuilding & Logistics)Department of the NavyCrystal Plaza 5

Washington, D.C. 20360-50001 (202) 692-1806

Nancy HicksEast Coast Representative

if Animal Protection Institute of AmericaP.O. Box 57006Washington, D.C. 20037(703) 528-5205

Richard InnesLegislative AssistantSenator John H. ChafeeUnited States SenateSD-567 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510-3902(202) 224-2921

I Larry KossHead, Shop and Air Systems Branch (OP-452)Office of the Chief of Naval OperationsDepartment of the Navy

Washington, D.C. 20350-2000(202) 692-5572

I Sally Ann Lentz, Esq.Staff AttorneyOceanic Society1536 Sixteenth Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 328-0098

I Commander Tad McCallLegislative CounselOffice of Legislative AffairsIDepartment of the NavyWashington, D.C. 20350-13001 (202) 695-0451

Imm m1 I- m m mimmm m

I Albert Manville, Ph.D.Senior Staff Wildlife BiologistDefenders of WildlifeI1244 Nineteenth Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 659-9510

Rod MooreProfessional StaffSubcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife

Conservation and the EnvironmentHouse Merchant Marine and Fisheries CommitteeUnited States House of RepresentativesIH2-540 House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

(202) 226-3520

Kathy O'HaraStaff Marine BiologistCenter for Environmental Education1725 DeSales Street, N.W., Suite 500Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 429-5609

Tom ScaranoProgram Manager for Shipboard

Environmental ProtectionNaval Sea Systems Command (56YP)Department of the NavyWashington, D.C. 20362-5101

(202) 692-5436

Nancy StehleI Deputy Director of EnvironmentOffice of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Shipbuilding and Logistics)Department of the NavyCrystal Plaza 5Washington, D.C. 20360-5000(202) 692-7110

Sharron StewartCoastal Resources ChairmanTexas Environmental Coalition

P.O. Box 701Lake Jackson, Texas 775661(409) 297-6360

I:I

: I)E " ..

Brian Sweeney

Legislative AssistantRepresentative Schneider1512 Longworth House Office BuildingUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, D.C. 20515-3902(202) 225-2735

Whitney TiltProject ManagerNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation

I 18th and C Streets, N.W.Room 2725Washington, D.C. 20240(202) 343-1040

Bob TomasikHead, Corporate Plans and

Policy BranchNaval Supply Systems CommandDepartment of the NavyWashington, D.C. 20376-5000(202) 695-6150

Craig Van NoteDirector

Monitor Consortium1506 Nineteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 234-6576

j Dean WilkinsonWildlife Legialative CoordinatorGreenpeace U.S.A.1436 U Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20009(202) 462-1177

Ii 1 cf36-178a. 2

"I

II

I I APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

I. Armed Forces Information Service - the public informationg service for the armed forces.

2. Chief of Naval Education and Training - the officerresponsible for administering the Navy's education and

training programs.

3. Chief of Naval Operations - senior military officer in theNavy.

4. David Taylor Research Laboratory - a Navy laboratoryresearching and developing technologies for various Navy

areas of interest.

5. Defense Logistics Agency - the organization that overseespurchasing and distribution of items common to all UnitedStates Armed Forces, not exclusively single service (like,Navy) use items.

6. Duty Officer - a generic title for an officer in theexecution of responsibilities to further the command'smission in a role other than the officer's specificadministrative assignment, such as the officer representing

the commanding officer after the work day is over and thecommanding officer has gone home.

7. Natick Laboratory - military research and developmentlaboratory related to food and clothing.

8. Naval Environmental and Preventive Medicine Command - theNavy's equivalent to a public health agency.

9. Naval Facilities Engineering Command - the systems commandresponsible for facilities and military constructionengineering and also some environmental issues.

10. Naval Fleet Command - there are two fleet commands. One isthe Pacific and the other is the Atlantic Fleet Command.The two commands divide responsibility for Navy ships andaircraft based on the location of the ships or aircraft

within the geographic area of respansibility of either theCommander of the Pacific or Atlantic Fleet Commands. TheFleet Commanders are the intermediary administrative commandbetween the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the TypeCommanders (TYCOM).

11. Naval ROTC Program - a Navy training program for futureofficers enrolled in colleges and universities.

12. Naval Supply Centers - regional purchasing and distributioncenters located in the United States.

13. Naval Supply Depots - overseas purchasing and distributioncenters.

1. Naval Sea Systems Command - the organization that designsand builds ships and submarines and subsystems, likeI}propulsion or weapons systems, for the ships andsubmarines.

I 15. Naval Supply System Command (NAVSUP) - the organization thatoversees purchasing and distribution of supplies for theNavy.

16. NAVSUP FOSSAC - subordinate command under Naval SupplySystems Command (NAVSUP) and responsible for storeroom andwarehouse design and distribution systems.

17. NAVSUP NAVRESSO - subordinate command under NAVSUPresponsible for retailing personal convenience items.

18. OPNAV - the organization that carries out the mission of theOffice of the Chief of Naval Operations.

19. Systems Command - other systems commands provide themanagement for aircraft and research laboratories.

20. TYCOM - the administrative commander of a single type ofNaval unit (e.g., aircraft carriers, submarines, or othersurface vessels). The officer responsible for administrativerules, training and maintenance for all Naval units of thetype, e.g., all aircraft carriers. Works for and under the

respective Fleet Commanders.

, Ii

I

'i

COPI - DTIC · fie copi 0 n dtic i electe nov1 o i1 9 contract n00014-88-j-1103 i reducing navy...

Documents

Transcript of COPI - DTIC · fie copi 0 n dtic i electe nov1 o i1 9 contract n00014-88-j-1103 i reducing navy...