This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
In 1965, before most Americans were aware that a national environment problem existed, the U. S. Navy initiated steps to control pollution of the water and air. The Navy’s newest cleaning tool is the rugged and reliable dynamic inclined plane (DIP) work- boat, facing page, designed for the collection of harbor oil spills.
Pollution is a significant social, political, and economic problem. For too long we have callously used the environment, turning deserts into dumps, rivers into sewers; for too long we have squandered our natural resources, burning our bridges behind and ahead of us as well. In recent years, however, as an "ecopassion” has permeated our society, public alarm, bordering on panic, has increased government and private interest in the problems of pollution.
The Navy, it must be stated, did its part in creating environmental problems.[1] Shore installations dumped sewage and industrial waste into coastal waters and filled the air with smoke from land dumps and firefighting schools. Ships discharged raw sewage, blew tubes, stripped bilge water, lighted off boilers with an inadequate air supply, threw garbage overboard, and spilled oil. But, to its credit, the Navy is now doing more than its part in trying to undo the damage done to the environment.
The Navy Environmental Protection Program. In 1965, before the national awareness of the pollution problem developed, the Navy initiated steps to control it and
began work on sewage treatment devices for ships. Executive Order No. 11258 of 17 November 1965, and Executive Order No. 11282 of 26 May 1966, directed all Federal agencies to provide leadership in preventing and abating water and air pollution. On 4 June 1966, the Secretary of the Navy promulgated Instruction 6240.6, which established environmental policy guidelines. This document focuses attention on Navy environmental problems and requires control of all pollution caused by operation of ships, installations, facilities, and buildings. It directs the Navy to demonstrate leadership in pollution abatement and to cooperate with local, state, and Federal agencies.
In late 1966, the Navy initiated its Air and Water Abatement and Control Program. Commander Naval Facilities Engineering Command, designated the Single Executive Manager for the Program, was charged with identifying pollution problems and coordinating an effective remedial program. By May 1967, based on a comprehensive survey of waste water and air pollution emanating from naval activities, every naval installation had prepared five-year requirements for water and air pollution control. The Navy spent $33 million in 1968 and 1969 on construction of shore installation sewage facilities—the first tangible efforts of the pollution abatement program.
By 1970, various programs were in progress, but increased public concern about pollution required greater action by the Navy. The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and Executive Order No. 11507 of 4 February 1970 required all facilities owned by or leased to the Federal government to be operated and maintained in conformance with Federal air and water quality standards. Consequently, in October 1970, the Chief of Naval Operations established an Environmental Protection Division (OP-45) and appointed Commander J. A. D’Emidio as the Navy’s "Pollution Czar.” The Environmental Protection Division consolidated the Navy’s effort to curb pollution and added
momentum to the Navy’s Environmental Quality Program: in 1971, the Navy spent $33 million on the environment; in 1972, $65 million was spent. To focus more attention on the environment, Secretary Chafee, in August 1972, appointed Deputy Under Secretary Joseph A. Grimes, Jr., as the department’s first high civilian executive to coordinate the environmental protection programs of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
The Navy’s policy is to meet all pollution abatement requirements unless such measures would clearly interfere with national security. Committed to the national pollution abatement program, the Navy is attempting to control its pollution from shore facilities and ships.
Shore Facilities. Most naval facilities are located on the ocean or at the mouth of large rivers. In the past, waste was discharged the easiest and most economical way—with very little thought given to the environment. Public indifference to pollution made policy guidance less stringent than today, and no funds were allocated for pollution abatement.
In 1968, using well-known techniques to treat the industrial and municipal waste, the Navy began to improve shore pollution abatement facilities. Consequently, large programs are underway at Pearl Harbor, Norfolk, Miramar Naval Air Station near San Diego, and Newport. Progress in some areas has been remarkable; elimination of shore discharge has made San Diego Bay a national model, and the executive secretary of the San Diego Regional Water Control Board has cited the Navy as "having an outstanding record in . . . eliminating water pollution.” At Pearl Harbor, the Navy spent $15 million constructing facilities for the secondary treatment of sanitary and industrial waste water for the 70,000 people who work in the area. Prior to this, 80 discharge points released raw sewage into the waters of Pearl Harbor.
Complementing the Navy’s abatement efforts, state and local agencies have permitted Navy use of regional and municipal waste collection and disposal systems. At the Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut, the Navy has joined forces with the community in a sewage treatment project to protect the waters of the Thames River; and the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona, uses a new city-operated sewage treatment plant. Similarly, the Navy has connected into the municipal sewage systems in Norfolk, Charleston, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, and Pearl Harbor.
Attempting to meet air quality standards, the Navy is working closely with local communities to find joint solutions to mutual problems. This cooperation has made possible the construction and operation of larger and more efficient pollution control facilities with savings to both the community and the Navy. For in
stance, the city of San Diego and the Navy are using some of the land on Miramar Naval Air Station as a sanitary land fill.
In Norfolk, the Navy has built the first water-cooled solid waste disposal incinerator in the country; this furnace, which has a capacity of 360 tons of refuse per day, eliminates open burning and generates steam to meet the requirements of Navy ships and buildings in the area.
The fire-fighting school is one of the Navy’s most serious pollution problems. The Navy operates several schools to teach the proper methods and procedures for extinguishing fires on board ship and to dispel the fear of fire. Smoke, heat, and fire are produced in suitable mock-ups of ship structures. Although these fires are intermittent and of short duration, incomplete combustion of the fuel produces dense black smoke that is visible for miles. To control this smoke, the Navy is experimenting with various anti-pollution systems. At Norfolk, a water spray system is now in use which eliminates most of the smoke from oil fires. The school at Treasure Island, California, is equipped with a $1.5-million prototype device that captures smoke and completes the combustion of the carbon particulate matter in a gas-fired afterburner; a similar model is being installed at the San Diego Fire-Fighting School.
High-performance jet aircraft engines are another source of noise and air pollution. Many programs are underway to abate the products of engine combustion without decreasing effectiveness or increasing cost. The Navy has spent $6.1 million on the development of smokeless combustors and the retrofitting of new combustor cans in certain engines. Replacement of combustor cans in the TF30-P-8 and J52-P-8 engines is completed, and now efforts are being made to develop acceptable designs and prototypes to eliminate smoke from the TF41, TR30-P-6, T5, J79, and J57 models. Ne*' naval aircraft engines under development to power the F-14, F-14B, and S-3 will be equipped with smokeless combustors; in time, all Navy aircraft will be equipped with smokeless combustors.
The Navy, in cooperation with Pratt and Whitney, has carefully evaluated the use of fuel additives both in engine test cells and in flight. These tests, however, indicate that fuel additives deposit hard residues on the surface of internal engine parts, degrade engine per' formance, increase compressor stalls, and increase required maintenance. Consequently, no completely ac' ceptable additive has been developed. Studies of several systems to control emissions from jet engine test cel*s are also underway. The nucleation or wet scrubbef system that removes 99% of noxious gases seems mos1 promising. Prototypes of this $300,000 system atf under construction at Jacksonville’s Naval Air Station
Pollution Abatement—We Do Our Part 71
As another step toward cleaner air, the General Services Administration issued regulations to phase out leaded gasoline in government vehicles. Although one-half of the Navy’s 60,000 autos are high-compres- sion engines and cannot use low-lead gas, all new vehicles procured, from model year 1971 onward, are designed to operate on 91 octane gas which will significantly reduce vehicle air pollution. Hopefully, this action will assure a market for low-leaded gases and will hasten the development of a refinery and distribution capability that can serve the civilian motorist.
The Navy also has taken action to stop ocean dumping. In December 1970, the Secretary of the Navy prohibited the dumping of trash, refuse, oily wastes, industrial sludges, and other waste generated in port °r ashore. In the past, the Navy dumped obsolete conventional ammunition at sea. Although evidence 'ndicates the impact of these dumps on ocean ecology ls minimal, some environmental questions remain un- answered. Consequently, the Secretary prohibited all ocean-dumping of munitions until the Navy either determines the precise effect on the environment or de- yelops environmentally acceptable methods of ammuni- t[on disposal.
Besides combating existing pollution, the Navy is ‘ovestigating the environmental impact of any future Projects. If an assessment indicates an adverse environ-
This incinerator, one of four located at Orlando, Florida’s Naval Training Center, consumes the hydrocarbon pollutants in the heavy black smoke given off at the firefighter’s school and discharges into the atmosphere 720 pounds of relatively clean gas per minute.
mental effect, a five-point Environmental Impact Statement is prepared which (1) assesses both the direct and indirect total impact, (2) lists adverse effects which cannot be avoided, (3) lists alternatives to the action, (4) evaluates the short term and the long term relationships, and (5) identifies all irreversible commitments of natural resources.
These are just a few of the projects that are part of the Navy’s effort to control pollution at its shore facilities. Much more remains to be done, and the Navy’s Environmental Protection Program is expanding to solve these problems.
The Shipboard Program. Concern over pollution from ships and smaller craft stems primarily from the large number of vessels:
Commercial vessels 46,000
Commercial fishing vessels 65,000
Federal vessels 1,500
Foreign ships 40,000
Recreation craft 8,000,000
In the light of the nation’s attempts to improve the quality of the environment, we cannot ignore ships’ waste. Even if cities and industries clean up waste discharges, the water could remain polluted by the sewage, oils, litter, bilge water, ballast water, and other polluting substances from ships.
Still, the ocean pollution caused by Navy ships must, of course, be kept in proper perspective. In relative terms, the Navy is a very minor pollutor of the environment. For example, all world shipping contributes less than % of 1% of the sewage which flows into the sea. In the United States, the sewage from the 46,000 commercial vessels, 1,600 federal vessels, 65,000 commercial fishing vessels, and 8,000,000 pleasure boats is less than that produced by a city about the size of San Diego.
The Congress has enacted the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 to control ship pollution. Section 13 of this comprehensive legislation orders abatement of ship sewage pollution. Subsequently, President Nixon directed the Environmental Protection Agency (epa) to establish ship sewage treatment standards.
On 23 June 1972, the EPA issued the final standards for sanitation devices on vessels using the nation’s navigable waters. The standards will affect more than 600,000 U. S. vessels and an unknown number of foreign flagships. These standards become effective when incorporated into Coast Guard regulations that govern the design, construction, installation and operation of marine sanitation devices. Two years after promulgation, the standards become effective for new ships; existing ships, including those under construction, must be backfitted with waste control systems within five years after standard promulgation.
Believing that standards should be implemented, the Navy proposes standards attainable at reasonable cost and based on current available devices; but if the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated standards prove to be unrealistic, the Navy might unwillingly seek the national defense exemption offered in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The exemption, however, would be unpopular to the general public and would serve neither the goal of the EPA standards nor the objective of the Navy’s Environmental Protection Program.
The Secretary of the Navy has acknowledged that treating ship sewage is the greatest environmental problem facing the Navy. In a letter to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary stated, "I will use every means at my disposal to help implement attainable, enforceable standards. . . . Presently, the Navy is aggressively pursuing solutions to the problems of sewage disposal—I can assure you that development of this equipment is at the top of our priority list.” Working with the in-house research and development community and canvassing the open market, the Navy has developed two groups of systems to treat sewage: on-board treatment systems and collection, holding, and transfer systems.
On-board treatment methods are biological, me
chanical, electrical, or chemical systems that discharge a processed effluent. For a system to be effective, it must meet effluent standards while in transit or at anchor, remain secured for long periods of time without degrading treatment efficiency, and be of minimum size and weight. While continuing the search for systems, the Navy has awarded contracts for several shipboard sewage treatment devices.
The first contract was awarded in 1966 to Fairbanks- Morse for a mechanical-electrochemical on-board treatment unit. A prototype unit was installed in the destroyer USS Fiske (DD-842) in March 1967, and eight units were installed in the submarine tender USS Canopus (AS-34) in November 1969. More recently, three 500-man Fairbanks-Morse units were installed in another submarine tender, the uss Fulton (AS-ii). In operational testing, these units encountered performance, safety, and maintenance problems; but since non-bio- logical sewage treatment systems have a significant weight/volume advantage over biological devices, attempts are being made to improve the design and enhance the performance of the Fairbanks-Morse system installed in these ships.
Frequently used for land-based sewage treatment, aerobic (oxygen-consuming) systems have beef
adopted to shipboard use. The extended aeration systeh1 grinds organic material into small particles to facilitat‘d oxidation in an aeration compartment, separates tbf sludge and liquid in a settling chamber, aerates th£ settled sludge, and discharges a chlorinated supernata111 liquid. Heavier and larger than alternative treating systems, the aerobic system is also not yet acceptable The macerator-chlorinator is a commercial sewa^ treatment system designed for minesweepers, patf°
Pollution Abatement—We Do Our Part 73
boats, and smaller craft. By mixing sewage with hypochlorite, this device produces a chemical reaction that marginally reduces the biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and kills most organisms. The mac- erator-chlorinator is simple to install, easy to operate, and low in cost and weight, but the hypochlorite is a storage problem and a fire hazard. Furthermore, the macerator-chlorinator does not meet the proposed standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Hoping ultimately to have a system to treat all ship waste, the Navy is pursuing the development of an integrated shipboard waste management system. The General Electric Company recently developed a system to handle galley, sewage, and laundry waste of 30 to 300 men. Using an electrocoagulation process, the fully automatic prototype units met proposed national water quality standards in preliminary tests. Designed specifically for marine use, the system is under operation evaluation on board the Army Corps of Engineer’s dredge Gerig.
Paralleling efforts to develop on-board treatment systems, the Navy has developed collection, holding, and transfer systems which retain waste on ship for disposal to a barge or a shoreside treatment system. Simple holding systems are insensitive to discharge regulations and are used in the Navy today, but only limited facilities are available for receiving shipboard waste. With the limited storage capacity on ship, the use of holding tanks must be combined with adequate sewage receiving facilities at ports and docks.
A variation of the simple holding tank is the recirculating flush system (Koehler Dayton) similar to a system used on commercial aircraft: water circulates the solid sludge to a holding tank where the concentrated sludge is removed and stored, and the water is recirculated through the system. This system increases storage capability and extends time between pumpout; the bolding capacity required for a recirculation system is °ne-tenth that required for a simple holding system.
The installation of sewage disposal systems in ships ls a high priority requirement of the Navy’s pollution abatement program. Consequently, since no on-board treatment system is presently acceptable, those large ships scheduled for overhaul in Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974 will be backfitted with a collection, holding, and transfer sewage system; holding tank capacity will be determined on a case basis for individual classes of ships. Similarly, new ships will have the holding tank system with a 12-hour holding capacity provided voids and spaces are available without undue cost increase °r impact on military characteristics. Eventual installation of marine sanitation devices will be considered in designing piping runs, pump locations and general design of the holding tank system. This policy action
does not imply holding systems will be authorized for installation at any cost or at any delay in ship programs but it does indicate the direction of the Navy’s shipboard pollution abatement program: holding systems that meet space and weight requirements for on-board treatment devices.
Staining shorelines and beaches, coating floating structures and watercraft, and causing taste and odor problems in municipal water supplies, oil spills and discharges have plagued the nation’s water for decades. The oil spills on the high seas by the Torrey Canyon off the coast of England, and by the Ocean Eagle off San Juan, Puerto Rico, raised great concern over oil pollution. Most oil pollution, however, is not caused by massive oil spills but by small spills in harbors.
The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 prohibits the discharge of oil, except those quantities as determined by the President, into the adjoining shorelines or the contiguous zone of the United States. Through the EPA, the President established regulations which prohibit oil discharges that cause a film sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the water surface. Consequently, the Navy has developed a two-point oil pollution abatement program: preventive measures and containment and removal of the oil at the source.
Since human error causes 90% of oil discharges, preventive measures are vital to an oil pollution abatement program. After evaluating existing operational procedures, the Navy required commanding officers to upgrade the operation of shipboard fuel transfer and replenishment operations. Sailors, now more aware of oil pollution problems, are assigned extra training before assignment to fueling work, and alarm systems and automatic shutoff equipment are being designed to prevent spills from overfilled tanks.
When a leak occurs, however, every effort is made to contain the oil at the source. Since the use of sinking agents and dispersants is restricted by the EPA, the Navy presently uses oil booms to contain oil discharges. The Naval Research Laboratory in Washington is trying to develop surface films to control oil spills: these films are a series of organic chemicals that form thin surface films that drive oil across a water surface, increase the oil layer thickness, and reduce the oil area of coverage. This chemical "boom effect” facilitates oil recovery operation.
In compliance with the National Contingency Plan, all naval stations have established a quick-response capability to contain and remove minor oil spills. One oil-collecting device is installed in converted LCMs and uses a rotating multi-disc drum somewhat like a harrow. As the drum passes over the oil and water, the
74 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September 1973
The Jetskim 500 oil-spill recovery system, seen here in a demonstration tank, uses jet streams of water to force an oil slick inward and under the device's collection dome, from where it is drawn off for reclamation and disposal.
oil adheres to the rotating discs; a wiping device cleans the disc, and the oil is sent through a collection pipe to a storage area. An alternative device, the oil skimmer, employs the inverted weir principle to recover oil: oil is carried under the skimmer device, rises through a baffle, is captured in a chamber (essentially water free) and removed to a storage area.
The Dynamic Incline Plane (JBF-DIP) skimmer workboat is the latest piece of equipment developed to collect oil spills. Built under a Naval Facilities Engineering Command contract, this 35-foot craft is stationed at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. The DIP is based upon the concept of collecting the oil under the surface of the water, thus greatly reducing the effect of the waves. As the skimmer moves through the water, the oil is forced to follow the surface of a moving inclined plane to a collection well underneath the skimmer. Buoyant forces cause the oil to surface in the well, forcing water out the bottom. As the oil collects, it is pumped off to storage tanks. Separation occurs automatically and virtually no water is collected. This concept has resulted in a skimmer that works in wind, waves, and current, and is extremely rugged and very reliable.
Attempting to improve the Navy’s ability to control oil pollution, research and development efforts are continuing to explore alternative methods to contain and to collect oil spills; several new devices are now under operational evaluation. The Coast Guard is presently testing a new 1,000-foot floating flexible oil containment barrier and an airborne pollution control system capable of transporting 140,000 gallons of oil from a distressed tanker. Another experimental device, the Jetskim 500 Oil Spill Recovery System, employs jet streams of water to force an oil slick inward; under a collection dome the oil is reclaimed for disposal.
Almost all countries prohibit oil discharges into their territorial water, but the policy of the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Seas by Oil of 1954 and the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 permits ships to dump ballast and bilge water 50 miles beyond the coast. In November 1970, however, the NATO committee on the Challenges to Modern Society Oil Spill Conference took action to prohibit oil pollution of the high seas. The Secretary of Transportation, the chairman of the U. S. delegation, stressed that action must be taken on a global basis and proposed a complete halt by mid-
decade to all intentional discharges of oil and oily waste into the oceans. The NATO Conference adopted this proposal in a modified tone as a major goal.
To meet this future commitment, the Navy initiated a survey to determine the shipboard alterations and equipment required to handle bilge and ballast oil)' waste. Although attempts to develop an on-board od treatment system have been unsuccessful, the Navy optimistic that a new oil-water separator presently under operation evaluation will solve a ship’s oily waste problems. The oil-water separator system takes in bilgc water, separates oil from the water, pumps the cleat1 water overboard and reclaims the oil for possible use-
Ship gases and smoke are also pollutants of the environment; when ships fire boilers or blow tube5’ noxious ash compounds are emitted into the atmoS' phere. To abate pollution in port, the Navy permit5 ships using boilers to blow tubes only once a day, and whenever possible ships secure boilers and use shoreside electricity. Ships in Newport use shoreside electricity 90% of the time.
In the near future, many ports will prohibit burning the residual fuel Navy special fuel oil (NSFO); attempt to improve boiler design and combustion technique to offset unacceptable effects of Navy special fuel od have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the Navy *5 converting all conventionally-powered, steam-drive11 ships to burn a new relatively clean, uniform, and ash-free distillate fuel Navy standard distillate fuel. I*1 1971, over 100 ships were converted to Navy standard distillate fuel, and, by 1974, all Navy ships will but11 Navy distillate. This will reduce the Navy’s shipboah* air pollution problems.
Pollution Abatement—We Do Our Part 75
Economic Impact & Summary. The Navy has a limited budget, and the costs of an effective pollution abatement program are massive. Therefore, an important part of the Navy’s pollution problem is economic. A tradeoff is involved in pollution control: more dollars spent on pollution abatement means fewer ships and aircraft. In the past, the Navy has preferred to buy and maintain ships, guns, and aircraft rather than invest in environmental control, but recently this has changed. The Navy has recognized it must be a good neighbor in environmental matters.
Initially, the Navy emphasized controlling pollution of the shore facilities. In fiscal years 1968-1972 Congress authorized $110 million, with $94.5 million included in Military Construction Appropriations, to clean up Navy shoreside pollution. In the next three years, $246 million is budgeted to expand and improve the shipyard and naval base pollution control facilities.
In the same five-year span 1968-1972, the Navy spent only $17.4 million on the shipboard program. Originally, the lack of operational technological solutions to vessel pollution blocked expenditures, but the technology required to operate "clean” ships is now being developed. Consequently, the Navy’s Environmental Protection Program has become much more concerned with shipboard pollution problems.
Although treatment and discharge standards have been established by the EPA, costs for installation of treatment devices are not well defined. Therefore, accurate costs of equipping Navy vessels to meet pollution control needs cannot be made at this time. Initial estimates, however, indicate that the Navy will spend $300 million in 1974 to backfit ships with the waste bolding system; it costs $1 million to backfit a de
stroyer and $4 million to backfit a carrier. Another $600 million is necessary to equip the entire fleet with onboard treatment systems. The Navy plans to spend $1 billion on the many problems of shipboard pollution over the next five years. By 1977 the Navy will spend $1.4 billion for the combined shore and ship abatement programs.
President Nixon has prescribed the overall pollution abatement policy for Federal installations:
"The Federal Government is rightly expected to provide an example to the nation in pollution control. We cannot make new demands on state and local governments or on private industry without putting the Federal house in order. We will take the necessary steps this year to insure Federal activities do not contribute to the deterioration of our water and air.”
Working in support of the President’s national program, the Navy has initiated and developed a comprehensive pollution abatement program. While much has been accomplished in controlling both shipboard and shore pollutants, much more must be done. The Navy’s Environmental Protection Program represents a firm commitment to continue cleaning up the environment; in the National Pollution Abatement program, we in the Navy do our part.
Ensign Holt graduated third in the Class of 1972 at the U. S. Naval Academy. During his first class year, he was a Trident Scholar studying the "Economics of Pollution in the Surface Navy.” Ensign Holt is currently Damage Control Assistant in the USS Parsons (DDG-33) homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.
For the Record
Shortly after the dawn of the Atomic Age, the U. S. Navy was engaged in a program designed to ensure that it would remain abreast of the new techniques involved in this radically different form of war operations. Quite naturally, a considerable amount of secrecy surrounded the program.
It was somewhat disturbing, therefore, when it appeared in a brief Washington newspaper item that, during a visit to the West Coast, a high-ranking Navy official had said something which, by the time it got into print, was somewhat more revealing than he had intended.
As soon as he returned to Washington, therefore, the Security Officer called the official’s aide:
"Did your boss actually say what the paper leads me to think he said?”
"Commander,” the aide replied, in the tone of voice that only aides can successfully employ, "You may say for the record that this time the Boss was misquoted—verbatim.”
—Contributed by Rear Admiral J. A. Japp, U. S. Navy
(The Naval Institute will pay $10.00 for each anecdote published in the Proceedings.)