Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise
Ships, but Important Issues Remain (Letter Report, 02/28/2000,
GAO/RCED-00-48).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
actions being taken by federal regulators and the cruise ship industry
to prevent future illegal discharges of waste, focusing on: (1) the
nature and extent of reported illegal discharge cases for
foreign-flagged cruise ships from 1993 through 1998; (2) federal
agencies' efforts to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute illegal
discharges from foreign-flagged cruise ships; (3) the actions cruise
ship companies with proven illegal discharge violations have taken to
prevent future illegal discharges; and (4) the views of relevant federal
agencies and third-party interest groups regarding the actions that
cruise ship companies have taken, and what issues, if any, they believe
require further attention.
GAO noted that: (1) federal data indicate foreign-flagged cruise ships
were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters
from 1993 through 1998; (2) overall, the number of confirmed illegal
discharge cases by cruise ships in U.S. waters generally declined during
this period; (3) oil or related chemicals were discharged in 81 cases
and 6 cases involved discharges of garbage or plastic; (4) GAO
determined that about three-fourths of these cases were accidental,
while the remainder were either intentional or their cause could not be
determined; (5) the Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, and other
agencies undertake a variety of efforts to prevent, detect, investigate,
or prosecute illegal marine discharges by foreign-flagged cruise ships;
(6) the Coast Guard inspects ships in port, watches them as part of
aircraft surveillance in the open sea, investigates reported incidents
and adjudicates cases under its civil penalty procedures; (7) however,
the Coast Guard's ability to detect and resolve violations is
constrained by the narrow scope of its routine inspections, a
significant reduction in aircraft surveillance for marine pollution
purposes, and a breakdown of the process for identifying and resolving
alleged violations referred to flag states; (8) twelve cruise ship
companies that have been involved in nonaccidental pollution cases have
implemented new or updated environmental plans designed to enhance ship
safety and prevent pollution; (9) the plans, which were prepared
pursuant to new international standards or were mandated by U.S.
district courts after the companies pled guilty to pollution violations,
call for such steps as regular third-party verification of ships'
compliance with environmental procedures; (10) officials from the Coast
Guard, the Department of Justice, and the Center for Marine Conservation
said that cruise ship companies were making progress toward changing a
maritime culture that once permitted discharges of garbage and oil from
ships before international standards and U.S. laws to control such
discharges were adopted; (11) however, cruise ship companies must
demonstrate a sustained commitment to eliminate illegal discharges at
sea; and (12) some officials expressed concern about the large volume of
wastewater from sinks, showers, drains, and sewage systems that cruise
ships legally discharge at sea and the possible effects of these
discharges on sensitive marine life.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-48
TITLE: Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution
by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain
DATE: 02/28/2000
SUBJECT: Waste disposal
Marine transportation operations
Law enforcement
Water pollution control
Wastewater management
Sanctions
Environmental monitoring
Ships
Environmental law
Noncompliance
IDENTIFIER: Puerto Rico
NOAA National Marine Debris Monitoring Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-00-48
Appendix I: Illegal Discharge Incidents-Marine Violation and Pollution
Ticket Cases-by Cruise Ships in U.S. Waters, 1993-98
40
Appendix II: Alleged Pollution Discharge Incidents by Cruise Ships Referred
to Flag States, 1993-98
47
Appendix III: Violations Involving Pollution Incidents by Cruise Ships
Prosecuted by the Department of Justice, 1993-98
49
Appendix IV: Studies and Articles With Recommendations for Strengthening
U.S. Enforcement Efforts or Discouraging Illegal Discharges
53
Appendix V: Status of Recommendations, Cited in Studies
and Articles, to Strengthen U.S. Enforcement Efforts or Discourage Illegal
Discharges
54
Appendix VI: Cruise Ship Companies Included in GAO's Review
62
Appendix VII: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
63
Appendix VIII: Comments From the Department of Commerce
66
Appendix IX: Comments From the Department of Justice
67
Appendix X: Comments From the Center for Marine Conservation
68
Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
70
Table 1: Illegal Discharge Cases in the United States and Alleged
Discharge Cases Referred to Flag States for Foreign-Flagged
Cruise Ships, 1993-98 9
Figure 1: Characteristics of Discharge Cases in U.S. Waters by
Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98 11
Figure 2: Methods of Detecting Illegal Discharge Cases in
U.S. Waters Involving Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98 17
APHIS Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service
APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
CMC Center for Marine Conservation
ECP environmental compliance plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
IMO International Maritime Organization
ISM International Safety Management
ISP International Shipping Partners
MARAD Maritime Administration
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MSIS Marine Safety Information System
MSO Marine Safety Office
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RCCL Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-282376
February 28, 2000
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
From 1993 through 1998−the most recent year for which data are
available−cargo ships, tankers, cruise ships, and other commercial
vessels registered, or "flagged," in foreign countries have been involved in
almost 2,400 confirmed cases of illegally discharging oil, garbage, and
other harmful substances into U.S. coastal waters. Cruise ships, nearly all
of which are flagged in foreign countries, accounted for about 4 percent of
all confirmed illegal discharge cases by commercial foreign-flagged ships
during this period. Although the more than 100 cruise ships operating in
U.S. waters have been involved in a relatively small number of these
pollution cases, several cruise ship cases have been widely publicized. For
example, on a number of cruise ships operated by one cruise ship company,
pollution control devices were deliberately bypassed and records were
falsified, leading to criminal prosecution and an $18 million fine in 1999.
Several other cruise ship companies have also received substantial criminal
penalties, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for similar incidents.
Given that cruise ship activity in North American ports increased by almost
50 percent from 1993 through 1998 and ships with thousands of passengers can
generate large amounts of waste, the actions being taken by federal
regulators and the cruise ship industry to prevent future illegal discharges
are a matter of interest to the Congress. As agreed with your offices, we
focused our work on the following specific questions:
� What are the nature and extent of reported illegal discharge cases for
foreign-flagged cruise ships from 1993 through 1998?
� What efforts have relevant federal agencies made to prevent, detect,
investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges from foreign-flagged cruise
ships?
� What actions have cruise ship companies with proven illegal discharge
violations taken to prevent future illegal discharges?
� What are the views of relevant federal agencies and third-party interest
groups regarding the actions that cruise ship companies have taken, and what
issues, if any, do they believe require further attention?
Federal data indicate that foreign-flagged cruise ships were involved in 87
confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters from 1993 through 1998.
Overall, the number of confirmed illegal discharge cases by cruise ships in
U.S. waters generally declined during this period. Oil or related chemicals
were discharged in 81 cases; 6 cases involved discharges of garbage or
plastic. We determined that about three-fourths of these cases were
accidental, resulting from human or mechanical error, while the remainder
were either intentional or their cause could not be determined from the
available information. A few of the 87 cases involved multiple illegal
discharge incidents that, according to the Department of Justice, numbered
in the hundreds over the 6-year period. In addition to the 87 confirmed
cases, 17 other alleged incidents were referred to the countries where the
cruise ships were registered because the incidents occurred outside U.S.
waters or because jurisdiction could not be clearly ascertained. Both large
and small cruise ship companies were involved in illegal discharge cases.
The Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, and, to a lesser extent, other
agencies undertake a variety of efforts to prevent, detect, investigate, or
prosecute illegal marine discharges by foreign-flagged cruise ships. The
Coast Guard inspects ships in port, watches them as part of aircraft
surveillance in the open sea, investigates reported incidents, and if
warranted, adjudicates cases under its civil penalty procedures. However,
the Coast Guard's ability to detect and resolve violations is constrained by
the narrow scope of its routine inspections, a significant reduction in
aircraft surveillance for marine pollution purposes, and a breakdown of the
process for identifying and resolving alleged violations referred to flag
states. Both the Coast Guard and the Department of Justice have been
involved in these pollution cases, with Justice prosecuting the most serious
offenses. Civil penalties levied from 1993 through 1998 against cruise ship
companies by the Coast Guard ranged from a warning with no penalty to a
$17,500 penalty; Justice's criminal penalties against cruise ship companies
ranged from $75,000 to $18 million. In addition, federal agencies have
implemented or partially implemented a number of recommendations made by GAO
and others to improve the coordination of enforcement, data sharing, and
other efforts among relevant agencies.
We spoke with representatives from 9 cruise ship companies responsible for
ships involved in nonaccidental pollution cases, as well as from 3
additional companies (involved in accidental cases) that represent a large
segment of the cruise ship industry. These 12 companies have implemented new
or updated environmental plans designed to enhance ship safety and prevent
pollution. The plans, which were prepared pursuant to new international
standards or were mandated by U.S. district courts after the companies pled
guilty to pollution violations, call for such steps as regular third-party
verification of ships' compliance with environmental procedures. Among the
12 companies, the 8 that operate relatively large fleets of ships have taken
additional steps to reduce the amounts of plastics and other potential
wastes brought onboard, as well as to install incinerators and additional
equipment for treating or storing solid wastes, hazardous wastes, and oily
bilgewater. Officials from the four smaller companies said they have not had
to take these additional steps because their ships are away from port only 5
to 7 hours daily and have space onboard to store wastes until the ships
return to port.
Officials from the Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, and the Center
for Marine Conservation (a nongovernmental, science-based advocacy,
research, and public education organization that monitors marine pollution
issues) said that cruise ship companies were making progress toward changing
a maritime "culture" that once permitted discharges of garbage and oil from
ships before international standards and U.S. laws to control such
discharges were adopted. They pointed out, however, that cruise ship
companies must demonstrate a sustained commitment to eliminate illegal
discharges at sea. Some officials expressed concern about the large volume
of wastewater from sinks, showers, drains, and sewage systems that cruise
ships legally discharge at sea and the possible effects of these discharges
on sensitive marine life.
The worldwide cruise ship fleet includes more than 223 ships that carried an
estimated 9.5 million passengers in 1998, according to industry sources.
About one-half of the fleet was positioned in the North American market.
Over a 6-year period (1993-98), cruise ship embarkations from North American
ports increased by almost 50 percent, and by 2003, cruise ship companies
plan to add 33 new and/or bigger cruise ships to this market, which will
increase passenger capacity by about 35 percent. The major U.S. ports of
call are located in Florida. A large number of passengers also embark from
ports in Alaska, California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Puerto
Rico, and Texas.
International safety and pollution standards for ships are set through the
International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized
agency. Pollution standards are addressed under IMO's International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).1 The country
where a ship is registered (the "flag state") is responsible for certifying
the ship's compliance with pollution prevention standards, although many
nations delegate this task to classification societies, which perform
pollution prevention compliance (and other) inspections under contract.2 The
country the ship visits (the "port state") can conduct its own examinations
to verify the ship's compliance with international standards and can detain
the ship if it finds significant noncompliance. The Coast Guard performs
these examinations and enforces standards in U.S. ports.
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships3 and the Clean Water Act4 are the
key domestic laws governing the discharge of materials into U.S. waters. The
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships incorporates the provisions of MARPOL
into U.S. law. The Clean Water Act generally prohibits the discharge of any
pollutant within 3 nautical miles of the United States and of oil and
hazardous substances within 12 nautical miles of the United States. It also
requires those who discharge oil to immediately report the spill to the
appropriate federal agency. These U.S. laws apply to foreign-flagged ships
while they are in U.S. waters.5 If violations of U.S. law occur, the Coast
Guard can levy administrative civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation.
The Coast Guard refers more serious cases to the Department of Justice
(Justice) for possible criminal prosecution.
MARPOL requires parties to adopt specific standards governing the design,
construction, and operation of ships and their equipment and places
restrictions on the discharge of certain substances, such as oil, hazardous
substances, garbage, and plastics from ships. These restrictions generally
relate to the type, size, and/or quantity of the substance and the location
of the discharge. All ships of signatory countries are subject to MARPOL's
requirements regardless of where they are operating.6 Typically, according
to Coast Guard officials, the United States has taken direct action against
foreign-flagged ships when incidents have occurred within U.S. jurisdiction
and has referred cases to flag states in accordance with MARPOL's provisions
when incidents have occurred outside U.S. jurisdiction or jurisdiction could
not be determined. Under this process, information regarding suspected cases
is transferred from local Coast Guard units to Coast Guard headquarters for
review. If Coast Guard headquarters personnel believe sufficient information
is available to pursue a flag state case, they send the case to the U.S.
Department of State. The case is then forwarded to the cognizant flag state
for further investigation and action, according to a State Department
official in the Office of Oceans Affairs. Under the MARPOL convention, the
coastal state--upon detecting an alleged violation--is required to either
take action on the violation under its own laws or forward the case to the
flag state for its consideration. The flag state is required to promptly
inform the party referring the case of the action it has taken.
In addition to the protections and sanctions provided under MARPOL and U.S.
law, an updated international standard became effective for passenger and
other ships on July 31, 1998. This new standard, referred to as the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code, requires cruise ship owners and
operators to establish a safety management system. The system should include
an environmental protection policy, instructions and procedures for
pollution prevention, defined lines of authority, internal and management
reviews, and a written plan for both shore and shipboard personnel to
follow. Cruise ship companies are required to have their systems and plans
certified as in compliance with the ISM Code by the flag state or an
authorized agent of the flag state. Ships without proof of a certified plan
could be denied insurance coverage or entry into the world's major seaports.
Companies
The number of confirmed pollution cases involving foreign-flagged cruise
ships has declined since 1993. These cases, which have involved mostly oil,
have involved both large and small cruise ship companies.
According to federal data, foreign-flagged cruise ships were responsible for
87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters from 1993 through 1998.7
(See app. I for detailed information on each case.) This represents about 4
percent of the 2,395 confirmed illegal discharge cases for this period by
all types of foreign-registered ships entering U.S. ports. In addition to
the 87 cases, 17 other alleged discharge cases were referred to the
countries where the cruise ships were registered because the discharges
occurred outside U.S. waters or jurisdiction could not be clearly
ascertained.8
As shown in table 1, the total number of confirmed illegal discharge cases
in U.S. waters and referrals to flag states attributed to foreign-flagged
cruise ships generally declined from 1993 through 1998. For example, the
number of illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters by these cruise ships
declined from 24 in 1994 to 9 in 1998. Similarly, in the last 3 years for
which data were available, there were no referrals to flag states for
alleged discharges by cruise ships.
Table 1: Illegal Discharge Cases in the United States and Alleged Discharge
Cases Referred to Flag States for Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98
Illegal discharge cases in U.S. Cases referred to flag
Year waters states Total
1993 16 9 25
1994 24 4 28
1995 17 4 21
1996 13 0 13
1997 8 0 8
1998 9 0 9
Total 87 17 104
Source: GAO's presentation of data from the Coast Guard and the State
Department.
The general decline in discharge cases by foreign-flagged cruise ships is
consistent with the general decline in discharge cases by all types of
foreign-flagged ships. For example, in 1993, the Coast Guard documented 412
illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters for all foreign-flagged ships. In
1995, illegal discharge cases peaked for the 6-year period at 488, and in
1998, the number of cases dropped to 236. The total number of referrals to
flag states by the United States has dropped off more dramatically. Coast
Guard officials could not explain the sudden drop-off in these referrals.
Justice officials told us that some of the cases they prosecuted involved
multiple discharge incidents; thus, while there were 87 proven cases of
pollution from cruise ships, the Justice cases included many more separate
discharge incidents over the period from 1993 through 1998. For example, in
a plea agreement with Justice, one large company admitted to falsifying its
oil record books and acknowledged "regular and routine" illegal discharges
of "harmful quantities of oil-contaminated bilge waste and other pollutants"
in numerous jurisdictions, including Florida, New York, California, Alaska,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. According to a Justice official
familiar with the case, at least eight of the company's ships were involved
in hundreds of separate illegal discharge incidents in 1994 and 1995; one of
the company's ships continued the illegal discharges into 1998.
Eighty-one of the 87 cruise ship cases (93 percent) involving incidents in
U.S. waters were for illegal discharges of oil or oil-based products, while
the remaining 6 cases involved discharges of garbage or plastic. Of the 17
referrals to flag states for alleged illegal discharges, 10 involved oil and
7 involved garbage. The volume of discharged material associated with these
cases varied widely, from hundreds of gallons of oil to drops of oil-based
paint that spilled into the water during painting of a ship's hull. The
volume of garbage discharged also varied. In one case, investigators
determined that a cruise ship had illegally discharged garbage after more
than 30 plastic bags of garbage were found floating offshore and
investigators were able to link the garbage to a particular ship. In another
case, a few bottles containing plastic pieces washed up on shore with
information that linked them to a cruise ship that had recently passed
through the area.
The circumstances surrounding the discharge cases also varied. On the basis
of our analysis of case files for all 87 cases, we judged that 72 percent of
the illegal discharge cases occurring in U.S. waters (63 cases) were
accidental (i.e., associated with mechanical or human error). (See fig. 1.)
For example, many of the oil-related discharge cases involved ships loading
fuel in port. Our analysis showed that some spills occurred because crew
members were inattentive, while others occurred because equipment failed. In
contrast to these accidental cases, we judged 13 percent of the cases (11
cases) to be intentional (i.e., a ship's crew was actively discharging
illegal quantities or types of oil or garbage). For another 15 percent (13
cases), we could not determine from the available information whether the
incidents were intentional or accidental.
Figure 1: Characteristics of Discharge Cases in U.S. Waters by
Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98
Source: GAO's analysis of the Coast Guard's marine violation data.
Of the 17 discharge cases referred to other countries, we judged 9 to be
intentional, all involving alleged illegal discharges of garbage. We could
not determine the causes of the other eight cases from the information
available; all involved the alleged illegal discharge of oil.
In total, the 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases by foreign-flagged cruise
ships in U.S. waters and 17 cases referred to other countries involved 69
ships associated with 42 different cruise ship companies. However, only 18
companies were involved in discharges that we judged to be intentional or
whose cause could not be determined. We contacted nine of these companies
for additional follow-up.9 We also contacted three other companies that were
involved in accidental cases and represented a significant segment of the
cruise ship industry. (Apps. I, II, and III also provide information on the
ships and companies involved in illegal discharge cases and referrals to
other countries.) The 12 companies we contacted varied in size, in the types
of cruises they conducted, and in the sizes of the ships involved in the
incidents. Eight of the companies were large, operating 5 to 16 ships in
multiple U.S. and international ports, and four of the companies were small,
operating 1 ship to and from a U.S. home port. The ships ranged from small
ships providing gambling day trips for 350 to 800 passengers to megaliners
that provided overnight accommodations for up to 2,700 passengers for
multiday cruises.
Discharge Cases, but Other Areas May Need Increased Attention
The Coast Guard, Justice, and, to a lesser extent, other agencies undertake
a variety of efforts to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute illegal
marine discharges by foreign-flagged cruise ships. However, the Coast
Guard's ability to detect and resolve violations is constrained by the
limited depth and scope of its inspections, a significant reduction in
aircraft surveillance for marine pollution purposes, and a breakdown of the
flag-state referral process, both within the Coast Guard and by flag states.
In addition, federal agencies have implemented a number of recommendations
made by GAO and marine environmental experts to improve the coordination of
enforcement, data sharing, and other efforts among relevant agencies.
The Coast Guard is the main federal agency involved in preventing,
detecting, and investigating discharges. Most illegal discharges are
addressed through the Coast Guard's civil penalty process.
Prevention and Detection Efforts
The Coast Guard uses four main methods to prevent or detect illegal
discharges from cruise ships--passenger vessel inspections, aircraft
surveillance, third-party reports, and self-reports. 10 Under the passenger
vessel inspection program, which serves as both a prevention and a detection
measure, cruise ships that operate in U.S. waters are to be examined
quarterly. Coast Guard inspectors use inspection books with written policies
to guide their examinations. The primary purpose of these inspections is to
check for safety issues; pollution prevention issues are also addressed to a
more limited degree. On a typical inspection, a Coast Guard team of two to
four people spends 4 to 6 hours aboard a cruise ship performing tasks such
as fire drills, life-boat launchings, fire door inspections, and record
checks.
A number of factors limit the ability of Coast Guard inspectors to detect
illegal discharges or violations of environmental laws and regulations. The
inspectors' focus on safety, coupled with the large size of a cruise ship,
the limited time for inspection, and limited staff resources, make it very
difficult to perform detailed examinations of environmental functions,
according to the inspectors we interviewed. Moreover, the element of
surprise is missing. Company officials and crew members are notified of
these inspections weeks, or even months, in advance of their occurrence and
often know their nature and scope. According to Coast Guard officials,
inspections are scheduled in advance to accommodate ships' sailing schedules
and to ensure that key documents and personnel are available for the
inspection. They said that cruise ships usually are in port for less than 10
hours and inspections must be accomplished during this time.
Coast Guard officials in Miami said that during three of the four
inspections they perform on each cruise ship each year, they limit pollution
prevention checks primarily to inspections of documents. The Coast Guard
inspectors we interviewed who conduct cruise ship inspections said they
rarely have time to closely examine pollution prevention equipment and would
have, for example, little time to lift floor plates and closely examine the
piping for the oily water separator11 to ensure that it is properly routed.
Coast Guard officials estimated that they spend about 16 to 20 hours a year
inspecting each cruise ship, allowing about half an hour of each 4- to
6-hour inspection for environmental compliance issues and pollution
prevention equipment, unless a problem or suspected violations cause them to
look further.
While acknowledging the limited scope of their routine environmental
oversight aboard cruise ships, Coast Guard inspectors explained that they
have latitude to pursue in more detail any item that raises their attention
during an inspection. For example, after a Coast Guard aircraft observed a
foreign-flagged cruise ship discharging oil near Puerto Rico several years
ago, Coast Guard inspectors boarded the ship in Puerto Rico and examined the
engine room. Having too little time to finish the investigation before the
ship left port for Miami, the inspectors videotaped the ship's engine room.
When the ship reached Miami, another inspection team continued the
investigation and also videotaped the engine room. A later comparison of the
two videotapes revealed that between the two videotapings, inappropriately
installed piping had been removed in an attempt to hide the crew's practice
of bypassing the oily water separator and illegally discharging untreated
oily water at sea.
While the incident in Puerto Rico illustrates the Coast Guard's successful
detection of a serious pollution violation, it also reveals shortcomings in
the ability of the agency's inspection program--as currently structured--to
detect illegal discharges from cruise ships. In this case, for example, if a
Coast Guard aircraft had not observed the cruise ship illegally discharging
oil, Coast Guard inspectors would probably not have boarded the ship in
Puerto Rico or discovered through subsequent routine inspections that piping
had been altered to bypass the oily water separator. According to marine
inspectors in Miami, inspectors typically do not examine such piping during
their inspections unless they have cause for concern. Moreover, this case
led to a larger criminal investigation by Justice, and in its plea agreement
with Justice, the cruise ship company admitted that it had falsified its oil
record books and routinely bypassed the oily water separators on eight of
its ships--as recently as 1998 on one ship. A cognizant Justice official
said the Coast Guard and classification society inspectors alike performed
dozens of inspections of these ships during this period and did not detect
the oily water separator bypasses. Crew members on some of these ships
admitted to Justice investigators that they knew when inspectors were coming
aboard and were able to disconnect bypass piping to make the operation of
the equipment appear normal while the inspectors were onboard.
The Coast Guard also uses its aircraft to detect illegal pollution
discharges. Coast Guard investigators and aircraft personnel said that
aircraft surveillance of cruise ships is important both in detecting
pollution from these ships and in deterring future illegal discharges.
Investigators told us that overflights of shipping lanes where cruise ships
travel are particularly helpful because, when aircraft observe illegal
discharges, they videotape the incidents to provide clear documentation for
prosecution actions.
Coast Guard officials explained, however, that aircraft personnel--while
they routinely watch for such discharges while flying missions--are usually
focused much more on their other primary missions, such as drug enforcement
or migrant interdiction. The amount of time that Coast Guard aircraft spend
patrolling shipping lanes and watching for pollution from ships is unclear.
The Coast Guard's operational data do not accurately document this
information because aircraft personnel do not regularly record information
relevant to a mission's secondary purpose. For example, according to the
Coast Guard's data, one air station near Miami recorded 58 aircraft mission
hours for all marine environmental protection activities in 1998. This was
less than 1 percent of the total aircraft mission hours for the station. Yet
air station officials believe the recorded mission data understate their
attention to these activities because they look for pollution incidents
while on missions with a different principal purpose. Other missions, such
as drug enforcement, migrant interdiction, and search and rescue accounted
for over 9,000 hours for this air station.
The aircraft hours devoted to marine environmental protection appear to be
relatively low throughout the Coast Guard's District 7, which includes most
of Florida and has the highest concentration of cruise ships embarking from
U.S. ports. Moreover, according to the Coast Guard's data, Coast Guard
aircraft assigned to District 7 spent fewer than half as many documented
hours for marine environmental compliance in 1998 (283 hours) as they did in
1993 (578 hours). Coast Guard officials attributed this decline to (1) the
loss of two key aircraft, which devoted a significant number of hours to
marine environmental protection in 1993 and 1994, and (2) a surge in
aircraft hours associated with specific environmental protection initiatives
in 1993 and 1994.
Coast Guard officials in District 7 indicated that they are looking into
ways to better deploy their existing aircraft to improve their oversight of
offshore vessel traffic. They told us that closer coordination between the
air stations and the marine safety offices to monitor the offshore shipping
lanes used by cruise and other ships may improve environmental surveillance
by better combining multiple missions. For example, an aircraft heading to
its assigned area for a drug-related patrol may be able to take a water
route that coincides more closely with the paths of offshore ships. Coast
Guard officials in Miami told us that the Marine Safety Office (MSO) and the
air station had collaborated recently on efforts to choose flight paths over
water rather than land, where possible, when aircraft are traveling to and
from other missions, such as drug enforcement or migrant interdiction. Coast
Guard officials in Miami believed that collaborative efforts like this
between MSOs and air stations could increase the time spent on environmental
overflights without detracting from other missions. Officials from the Coast
Guard's District 7 said they are developing an agreement among their units
to maximize the time spent over water routes when flying to and from air
stations for other primary missions.
Most of the illegal discharges handled by the Coast Guard were reported by
third parties or were self-reported (i.e. by cruise ship companies) and were
not identified through Coast Guard overflights, inspections, or other agency
activities. Of the 87 cases involving incidents in U.S. waters, 26, or about
30 percent, were reported by third parties, and 32, or about 37 percent,
were self-reported. (See fig. 2.) A third-party report usually involves a
person who witnesses an incident or its effects and then reports the
incident to the Coast Guard. Such a person could be, for example, a
passerby, a passenger, or a representative of a government agency who
notices a discharge in the water. Upon receiving a third-party report, Coast
Guard officials said, they typically refer it to the appropriate local Coast
Guard unit for follow-up.
Figure 2: Methods of Detecting Illegal Discharge Cases in U.S. Waters
Involving Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98
Source: GAO's analysis of the Coast Guard's marine violation data.
By contrast, Coast Guard aircraft overflights did detect the majority of
cases that were referred to flag states. Of the 17 cases referred to other
countries, 10 were detected by Coast Guard aircraft. Often in these cases,
aircraft personnel observed what appeared to be a discharge of oil at night,
using the aircraft's infrared equipment to detect a sheen trailing the
cruise ship. On several occasions, the aircraft videotaped the incident and
the videotape was later forwarded to the ship's flag state. The remaining 7
cases were third-party reports by passengers aboard the cruise ships. For
example, in a 1995 incident, passengers reported witnessing the ship's crew
dump garbage into the ocean over several hours. In some cases, passengers
photographed or videotaped crew members throwing plastic bags of garbage
overboard, and the evidence was forwarded to the appropriate flag state.
Investigation and Case Resolution
A Coast Guard investigation is the key link between detecting an illegal
discharge and resolving it. Coast Guard officials said they conduct a
follow-up investigation to review more closely the issues raised by a
detection report and develop a case against a ship, if warranted. The Coast
Guard typically interviews the ship's crew members or other witnesses,
reviews key documents maintained onboard (such as a garbage log or an oil
record book), and takes samples of discharged material, if available, to
test against materials found onboard. For example, several oil discharge
cases against cruise ships were linked to a ship by an oil "fingerprinting"
process that confirmed a match between the spilled oil and a sample of oil
taken from a ship's tank.
The Coast Guard resolved the incidents included in our review by levying
fines under its administrative civil penalty processes, referring incidents
to ships' flag states, or referring incidents to Justice for criminal
prosecution. We discuss these three processes in more detail below. The
nature of the case, determined by the information collected during the
investigation, typically dictated which strategy was followed.
Administrative Civil Penalty Processes
The Coast Guard adjudicates the majority of illegal discharge cases that
occur in U.S. waters through two administrative processes−a civil
penalty hearing program and a ticket program. Under the civil penalty
hearing program, a Coast Guard hearing officer reviews information provided
in the Coast Guard unit's investigation report and information provided by
the alleged violator. On the basis of the evidence presented, the hearing
officer determines whether a violation occurred and, if so, how much the
penalty should be. The amount of the penalty typically depends on the
severity of the incident and other extenuating or mitigating factors, such
as whether the same ship or company has had previous violations, according
to Coast Guard guidance. Initiated in 1994, the ticket program is a
simplified alternative to the civil penalty hearing process; it is limited
to oil spills of less than 100 gallons that, according to Coast Guard
guidance, involve "no significant gravity or culpability."
Of the 87 illegal marine discharge cases occurring in U.S. waters, the Coast
Guard reviewed 54 under its civil penalty hearing program and 26 under the
ticket program.12 The penalties ranged from a warning (with no monetary
penalty) for a spill of 1 gallon of lube oil after a piece of equipment
broke, to a $17,500 penalty for a discharge of about 150 gallons of oil
after a ship discharged water contaminated by oil when it emptied its
ballast tanks. The average civil penalty for the 54 cases handled under the
hearing process was $2,713; the average penalty for the 26 ticket cases was
$444.
Referrals to Flag States
From 1993 through 1999, the Coast Guard forwarded 17 cruise-ship-related
pollution cases to the State Department for referral to flag states for
further investigation and action because the alleged incidents occurred
outside U.S. jurisdiction or jurisdiction could not be clearly ascertained.
All of these cases occurred from 1993 through about mid-1995. Only one
cruise-ship-related referral occurred from June 1995 through November 1999,
the most recent month for which data were available. In fact, referrals to
flag states for cases related to all types of vessels virtually stopped in
mid-1995. From 1993 through 1995, for example, the Coast Guard sent about
163 cases (related to all types of vessels) to the State Department for
referral to the appropriate countries. For the 4-year period from 1996
through November 1999, the Coast Guard forwarded only three cases for
referral to flag states.
Coast Guard officials could not fully explain the dramatic decline in
referrals to flag states but suggested that reduced oil pollution from
vessels worldwide accounted for much of the decline. While reduced oil
pollution could have contributed to the decline in referrals to flag states
to some extent, it would have been unlikely to cause referrals to stop so
abruptly. The fact that the referrals ceased so quickly and almost
completely in mid-1995 indicates that other, more substantive factors came
into play. Moreover, if reduced pollution worldwide had been a major factor
contributing to the decline in flag-state referrals, one would expect the
Coast Guard's data on marine violation cases (including ticket cases) to
show a similar decline. However, the Coast Guard's data show that marine
violation cases actually rose above 1993 levels through 1996. In 1997,
marine violation cases fell slightly below 1993 levels, and in 1998, they
fell further but still represented a significant number of cases.
One explanation for at least part of the decline in referrals to flag states
may lie with changes in the Coast Guard's organization that occurred in the
mid-1990s. During this time, the Coast Guard began streamlining its
organization, including its marine environmental protection functions.
According to Coast Guard officials, responsibilities for processing
flag-state referrals received from the agency's MSOs in the field became
more fragmented, and headquarters stopped maintaining separate files of
submissions from MSOs or documentation about the disposition of these cases.
We did not survey all MSOs about the flag-state referral cases they
submitted since mid-1995; however, investigators in Miami told us they had
submitted two flag-state referral cases to headquarters in the last year.
According to the investigators, headquarters informed them about the
disposition of one case, but they heard nothing further from headquarters
about the other case. Since headquarters officials do not maintain
flag-state-referral files and did not document the disposition of these
referrals, they could not tell us what happened with these cases.
Even when referrals have been made, the response rate from flag states has
been poor. The final resolution of most of the 17 cases involving cruise
ships remains unknown. Case files maintained at the Department of State
contained no information from the flag states on how 11 of the 17 cases were
resolved. State Department and Coast Guard officials said the flag states
did not provide information for these cases, and although neither the Coast
Guard nor the State Department routinely follows up on cases referred to
flag states, the officials generally believe no action was taken against the
ships. For the remaining six cases, one ship was fined an unknown sum, and
one ship was to be "surveyed," even though the flag state indicated that it
had "reasonable doubt" about the incident. For the four other cases, the
flag state reported that it would take no action because it had reasonable
doubt or insufficient evidence or believed that the charge was not proved.
(See app. II for information about each flag-state referral case.)
This low response rate from flag states for alleged violations by cruise
ships mirrors a situation that has existed for years for all types of
vessels. In 1992, for example, the State Department analyzed responses from
flag states for alleged MARPOL V violations (dumping of garbage and/or
plastics at sea). The study showed that of the 111 cases referred by the
agency to flag states from January 1989 through June 1992, the flag states
did not respond to or took no action on 99 cases (89 percent) and assessed
small fines for only 2 of the remaining 12 cases. On the basis of this
study, the United States changed its enforcement policy for MARPOL V
violations in 1992. According to a document provided by the State
Department, the United States, under the new policy, would take direct
enforcement action against vessels for MARPOL V violations occurring between
3 and 200 nautical miles from the United States rather than referring such
violations to the flag states.
Under MARPOL, flag states are supposed to respond promptly to port states,
as well as to IMO, about the disposition of cases referred to them. A
cognizant IMO official told us that IMO only monitors the reported data and
has no authority to follow-up when flag states do not report the actions
they have taken. However, efforts by IMO suggest that it is aware of the
difficulties in getting flag states to act. In 1992, IMO developed a new
subcommittee to encourage flag states to respond to issues raised by port
states. A Justice official and a State Department official responsible for
forwarding referrals to other countries told us that if the United States
hopes to improve flag states' response rates through increased efforts at
IMO, the Coast Guard should continue to forward to the State Department
allegations of ship pollution violations occurring outside U.S.
jurisdiction. By taking this action, the officials said, the Coast Guard
would have a legitimate basis for raising the issue at IMO and pressing
other countries to respond to flag-state referral cases.
Referrals to the Department of Justice
The Coast Guard referred 12 cases to Justice for criminal prosecution. Of
these, nine were for incidents that occurred in U.S. waters, and three were
for incidents that had been referred to flag states for action.13 The next
section describes what happened in these cases.
Justice has prosecuted 10 of the 12 cases referred to it by the Coast
Guard.14 (See app. III for detailed information about each case.) The
financial penalties for prosecuted cases ranged from $75,000 to $18 million.
Three of the 10 prosecuted cases had been referred to flag states that took
no known action against the ships. For these three cases, Justice's actions
resulted in criminal penalties that ranged from $75,000 to $1 million. In
addition to the financial penalties, most of the companies were also
required to take additional actions, such as developing an environmental
compliance plan, submitting to independent audits of their environmental
practices, or purchasing new equipment. While the cases stemmed initially
from discharge incidents, Justice's actions and further investigations
developed some of the cases to include broader and more serious charges that
resulted in significantly higher fines. For example, in one civil penalty
case, the cruise company was assessed a $4,000 penalty for an illegal
discharge by one ship. However, the criminal case that stemmed from it
involved five of the company's cruise ships, included several felony counts,
and resulted in multiple probation requirements and an $8 million fine.15
Justice officials said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has
provided valuable assistance in investigating many of the criminal cases
against cruise ship companies.
The prosecution of criminal cases against cruise ship companies can have an
effect beyond the individual cases. The large penalties, media attention,
and probationary requirements may have a deterrent effect that Justice
officials say is part of the Department's purpose in pursuing environmental
crime cases. Industry and government officials also told us that the recent
high penalties for cruise ship pollution cases are likely to deter future
illegal discharges. Probationary requirements, such as those compelling
companies to have annual third-party audits of their environmental
practices, could also be a deterrent. These audits have the potential to
provide detection information to the various government agencies and company
managers receiving the reports, adding further assurance that future illegal
behavior will be identified.
Besides prosecuting specific marine pollution cases, Justice has sponsored
workshops, bringing in representatives from the Coast Guard, EPA, and FBI to
discuss procedures for investigating environmental crime. According to
Justice officials, federal agencies such as Justice, the Coast Guard, EPA,
and FBI are making efforts to coordinate their investigations.
Several other agencies−including EPA, FBI, the Department of State,
the Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)−are involved in illegal discharge issues to a limited degree.
� EPA strives to prevent illegal discharges through educational
efforts−such as marine debris workshops and an Internet posting of "no
discharge zones"−and responses to industry inquiries. EPA has also
worked with other federal agencies, such as Justice and the Coast Guard, to
investigate recent criminal cases against cruise ship companies. In
addition, EPA−in cooperation with NOAA, the Coast Guard, and other
federal partners−designed the National Marine Debris Monitoring
Program to identify sources of marine debris and determine whether the
amount of debris on U.S. shorelines is increasing or decreasing. The program
is in the initial stages of implementation and requires 5 years of national
data from 180 sites throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. EPA currently provides funding for this program.
� FBI is involved in investigating environmental crimes, including illegal
discharges from cruise ships. In recent years, FBI has investigated nearly a
dozen criminal cases involving pollution from cruise ships. FBI has
developed working relationships with many other federal, state, and local
agencies by participating in 34 task forces on environmental crimes across
the United States. According to FBI, its special agents bring to these task
forces their interviewing skills and familiarity with sophisticated
surveillance techniques. FBI legal attaches stationed around the world have
located and interviewed foreign witnesses and suspects in cruise ship
pollution cases. In addition, FBI's laboratory has provided hazardous
materials response personnel, aircraft, forensic computer analysis, and
handwriting and document analysis capabilities to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of these cases.
� The Department of State has served mainly as a diplomatic liaison between
the Coast Guard and flag states, helping to ensure that flag-state referrals
are forwarded to the appropriate representatives. In addition, Department
officials attend IMO meetings with Coast Guard officials to help address
U.S. maritime concerns.
� APHIS sets certain food waste disposal standards and regularly boards
cruise ships to ensure that these standards are being met. Onboard, APHIS
inspectors can both prevent and detect problems as they review certain
garbage disposal procedures and documents. According to agency officials,
they notify the Coast Guard if irregularities are found during their
inspections so that the Coast Guard can follow up.
� NOAA has no current long-term role in monitoring marine debris pollution
on U.S. shores. However, from 1988 through 1996, NOAA--in cooperation with
EPA and other federal partners--provided support for interagency, public,
and private efforts to design a national marine debris pilot study program.
According to agency officials, the efforts of this program led to the
creation of the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, which is
coordinated by the Center for Marine Conservation, funded by EPA, and based
on the use of data collected by dedicated volunteers.
Their Oversight of Marine Pollution
We identified 43 recommendations from nine studies and articles on marine
pollution oversight conducted from 1990 through 1998 by GAO, the National
Research Council, and others. (See app. IV for a list of the studies and
app. V for a complete list of the recommendations and their current status.)
The recommendations fell into three main categories:
� Clarifying enforcement requirements and coordinating enforcement actions.
Examples include determining the adequacy of commercial waste-handling
capacity at ports that receive garbage from ships, matching port receipts
for garbage to ships' garbage logs for inconsistencies, and developing
standards for compacted waste.
� Improving the reporting and sharing of enforcement information. Examples
include directing the Coast Guard to issue periodic reports listing
enforcement actions and assistance to other U.S. enforcement agencies and
drawing attention to the need for an international data collection and
reporting effort to highlight detected MARPOL violations and improve the
responsiveness of individual flag states.
� Improving data on marine debris and improving treatment technology.
Examples include research and development to identify efficient and
affordable onboard garbage treatment; technical support to commercial and
U.S. fleets on waste treatment methods; and long-term monitoring programs to
gather data on the trend, movement, and impact of marine debris on wildlife.
Federal agencies and IMO have implemented or partially implemented 30 of
these recommendations, according to knowledgeable agency officials who
reviewed the list.
Environmental Procedures
All 12 companies we reviewed have taken actions to prevent future illegal
marine discharges.16 (See app. VI for a list of the 12 cruise ship companies
we reviewed.) These companies included eight larger companies--those with 5
to 16 ships sailing on multiple-day cruises--and four smaller
companies--those with 1 or 2 ships sailing only on day cruises (no overnight
stay aboard ship). The companies' actions involved similar themes and
included three basic measures: developing enhanced waste management plans to
emphasize the companies' environmental policies and highlight proper
waste-handling procedures; increasing internal and third-party audit
oversight of environmental procedures to prevent illegal discharges; and
improving waste management and equipment to reduce or better treat waste
items. Many of these actions were taken in response to new international
standards or were mandated by U.S. district courts after several cruise ship
companies pled guilty to illegal discharge incidents.
Each of the 12 companies we reviewed reported improving its waste management
by developing and implementing an environmental compliance and waste
management plan that has been certified as in compliance with IMO's
International Safety management (ISM) Code.17 The ISM Code sets the
international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and
for pollution prevention, and it requires companies and operators of vessels
to organize their safety management activities both ashore and onboard to
ensure that standards for safety and environmental protection are
maintained. We verified that all 12 companies and their cruise ships had
received ISM Code certification by July 1998.
The ISM Code plan goes beyond the companies' previous efforts to address
environmental issues, according to company officials. Representatives of
each of the 12 companies told us their company had written environmental
plans in place before the current ISM Code plan. Most of these plans dated
back to the early 1990s. However, while some representatives said the early
plans were comparable to the plan required under the ISM Code, others said
the early plans were more limited in scope and included various plans
addressing single issues, such as how to respond to an oil pollution
incident or how to operate and maintain certain equipment associated with
waste treatment or discharge. Industry officials generally agreed that the
plans modeled after the ISM Code go farther than these earlier efforts and
have had a positive effect in enhancing ships' safety and environmental
protection. For example, one company official said the ISM plan emphasizes
the company's commitment to protecting the environment and stresses the need
for training, recycling, producing less waste, and reducing discharges of
waste at sea.
Besides preparing an environmental plan under the ISM Code, three companies
have prepared additional environmental compliance plans mandated by U.S.
district courts after the companies pled guilty to marine discharge
violations that occurred from 1993 through 1998. The courts of jurisdiction
approved these plans after finding that they met the conditions set forth in
the plea agreements. The plans generally address the violations cited in the
plea agreements and prescribe remedies ranging from specific procedures
covering a single component of waste management (such as oily bilgewater
management) to a more comprehensive set of procedures addressing systemwide
components of waste management.
Been Implemented
Cruise ship companies and their ships are subject to new audits of their
environmental procedures and operations, both by third parties and by
company auditors. The new audits resulted largely from the ISM Code, which
required external audits as part of the ISM Code certification process.
These ISM certification audits, which must be paid for by cruise ship
companies, are performed primarily by the authorized maritime organization
within the ship's flag state or by a classification society such as Lloyd's
Register of Shipping.
The 12 companies also reported conducting numerous internal audits or using
checklists to evaluate their ships' environmental operations. Some of these
audits and evaluations included weekly spot-checks of environmental and
waste management equipment operations, quarterly departmental audits of
equipment and procedural compliance by ships' officers, and annual shipwide
audits of environmental compliance performed by shoreside managers.
Officials of all 12 companies said the results of both internal and external
audits are sent to top managers to keep them aware of how ships' crews are
managing environmental and waste management programs.
Like the Coast Guard's ship inspections, the new ISM-related audits are
scheduled in advance, and the companies and ships' crews know when the
auditors are onboard and generally what they are reviewing. Also, a sizeable
portion of these audits focus on reviewing paperwork and processes. A
representative of a major classification society said that close
examinations of hardware, such as oily water separators and associated
piping, cannot be accomplished in the time allotted for these audits. We did
not accompany third-party or company auditors on any cruise ship
inspections, although cruise ship company officials told us that their
auditors do more than just "paper checks" when they are onboard.
Other types of oversight also take place. Cruise ships continue to undergo
the annual and quarterly Coast Guard inspections described earlier. The
three companies that are operating under court-ordered compliance plans are
also subject to independent audits and quarterly reports on their
implementation of the compliance plans. They are required to forward copies
of these audit reports to the court and to selected federal enforcement
agencies for review.
Completed court-required reports and internal audit reports for two cruise
ship companies disclosed that these companies had a number of administrative
and operational practices that needed improvement. Here are examples:
� A review of logbooks showed that on two separate occasions, a ship's
captain gave permission to discharge wastewater while the ship was within 12
miles of shore. The company's standard, which is more strict than U.S. and
international laws, calls for discharging wastewater only beyond 12 miles.
This permission could have led to wastewater discharges that did not comply
with the company's standards, according to the audit report.
� A ship's garbage record book was not completed and presented to the ship's
captain in a timely fashion.
� Plastic items flushed down ships' toilets by passengers could have been
discharged along with untreated sewage, which would be in violation of U.S.
and international laws that prohibit the discharge of plastics at sea.
The findings of the reports we reviewed indicate that at least for some
companies, the new processes and practices set forth in the plans are not
yet fully proven and systematized throughout each company's fleet. However,
the audits are identifying variances and deficiencies, and the results are
being reported to enforcement authorities and the audited companies.
Practices
While all 12 companies have taken steps to improve waste management and
treatment aboard their cruise ships, the 8 large companies appear to have
put more effort into implementing these practices than the 4 smaller
companies. The large companies' efforts are dictated, in large part, by the
size of the ships they sail. Many of these ships are small cities of 2,000
to 3,000 passengers and crew members that generate waste 24 hours a day, and
their itineraries sometimes keep them away from port for days. Therefore,
these ships have an incentive to adopt improved practices for dealing with
the large volumes of waste generated. Moreover, because all of these
companies have adopted new or more stringent environmental standards in
recent years, they have also had to invest in equipment to reduce or better
treat all the waste streams on their ships. An official for one large
company estimates an investment of $5 million to $6 million to install the
most up-to-date pollution control technology on the new cruise ships coming
on line and as much as $1.3 million to refit each existing ship with newer
pollution control equipment.
Cruise ship companies have waste management systems for solid waste, oily
bilgewater, wastewater from drains and kitchen areas, sewage, and hazardous
chemicals. Our review focused on three major waste streams: solids (i.e.,
paper, food, cans, glass, and plastic); oily bilgewater generated from the
day-to-day operation and cleaning of engines and equipment; and hazardous
chemicals used in dry-cleaning, photo-processing, painting, and other
operations aboard ship. The eight larger companies were better able than the
four smaller companies to point to recent changes to reduce discharges of
all three types of wastes. The smaller companies, which mostly operate day
cruises, can store wastes onboard until their ships return to port.
Solid Waste
All eight large companies told us that they have a policy goal of "zero
discharge" for solid waste at sea. To reach this goal, they first tried to
reduce the amount of waste coming onboard by, for example,
� replacing disposable plastic and Styrofoam cups and plastic stir sticks
with reusable/washable plastic cups and wood stir sticks that can be burned,
� using less paper and plastic wrapping for some food items,
� replacing individual plastic condiment packages with bulk dispensers, and
� eliminating the use of plastic bags to line garbage containers.
In addition, the large companies have introduced new equipment to eliminate
or recycle solid waste. For example, incinerators are now common on new
cruise ships. Some of these incinerators are capable of burning paper,
plastic, and de-watered food wastes. The ash is either returned to port or
discharged at sea in accordance with U.S. and international standards,
according to company officials. Other equipment includes glass crushers and
can compactors that can help prepare waste for recycling when a ship returns
to port. All but one of the eight larger companies said they have a waste
separation and recycling program aboard each ship calling on U.S. ports.
Recycled items include aluminum cans, glass, batteries, fluorescent tubes,
metal cans, and cardboard.
We accompanied Coast Guard inspectors and/or cruise ship company officials
aboard five cruise ships (representing five of the eight large companies) in
Miami, Florida; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia
(Canada), to observe firsthand the waste-handling procedures and equipment
aboard ship. While aboard, we (1) saw various types of equipment for
handling solid waste, including glass crushers, metal can compactors,
shredders, and incinerators; (2) reviewed practices and procedures for solid
waste management; and (3) in some instances, observed crew members
performing waste management procedures, including separating solid waste and
storing recyclable material for off-loading in port.
Oily Bilgewater
Oily waste is generated onboard a cruise ship through normal engine and
machine operations. The oily waste is collected along with freshwater and
seawater in the bilge at the lowest part of the ship. While all cruise ships
are required to have a system for separating the oil from bilgewater before
it is discharged, newer cruise ships generally have redundant systems.
Officials of some cruise ship companies told us that many older ships were
being fitted with backup systems as well. In addition, we were advised that
innovative treatment technology is being developed that will improve the
performance and reliability of existing oily water separators. MARPOL's
standards allow for discharges of no more than 15 parts of oil per 1 million
parts of water. Company officials believe that new technology and multiple
systems will help ensure that standards are met--or even surpassed−and
will prevent accidental discharges if one system breaks down. For example,
officials of one large cruise ship company told us they had dual oily water
separator systems aboard all their cruise ships. These systems, they said,
were capable of treating oily bilgewater to 5 parts per million--the level
adopted as the companywide standard. While onboard the five cruise ships we
visited, we saw the oily water separator systems and the meters for
measuring discharge levels, and we reviewed oily water discharge practices
and procedures with company officials.
Hazardous Waste
For hazardous waste, as for solid waste, some of the larger companies
reported taking actions to reduce the amounts onboard. They reported
replacing hazardous chemicals with nonhazardous ones and implementing
procedures to improve the collection and disposal of waste from hazardous
materials that cannot be replaced and must still be used. For example, at
least one company has replaced harmful cleaning solvents with more
environmentally friendly material, according to company officials. Equipment
has also been installed on many ships to recover silver from used
photo-processing chemicals and to collect harmful dry-cleaning chemicals.
Hazardous waste from photo laboratories, dry-cleaning operations, and other
sources are collected, stored in separate locked rooms, and off-loaded in
port, according to company officials. While onboard four of the five cruise
ships we visited, we saw locked storage areas for hazardous chemicals,
reviewed procedures for handling hazardous waste, and in some instances
observed the equipment for collecting hazardous waste from photo-processing
and dry-cleaning operations.
The four smaller companies have not had to take major steps to manage and
treat wastes because their ships are away from port only 5-7 hours daily and
have space onboard to store wastes until the ships return to port. This is
particularly true for solid wastes, such as paper, food, cans, glass, and
plastics. All four companies said they have a "zero discharge" policy for
solid waste; all solid waste is returned to port, and taken to a landfill.
Only two of the companies said they had attempted to reduce the amount of
waste brought onboard by purchasing items with less packaging and less
plastic. In addition, only one company said it had made any effort to sort
solid waste for recycling, and none reported investing in new solid waste
treatment equipment. Three of the four companies said they have oily water
separators and meters on their ships to measure the oil content of the
wastewater discharged at sea. An official from the company that did not
report having an oily water separator onboard said the oily bilge waste is
stored onboard and transferred to waste handlers in port.
Made, but Important Concerns Remain
Officials from the Coast Guard, Justice, and the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC) acknowledged that the cruise ship industry has made
progress in addressing illegal discharge issues. However, they expressed
concern about emerging issues, most of which are related to the purity of
wastewater discharged from these ships.
While officials from the Coast Guard, Justice, and CMC acknowledged the
progress that cruise ship companies have made toward improving environmental
compliance, they pointed out that these companies have not yet demonstrated
that they can sustain their efforts and prevent pollution incidents from
occurring.18 They also noted that willful incidents, especially by
individuals, and accidents are still possible.
These officials agreed that changing the views or "culture" of ships' crews
and cruise ship company officials on waste disposal is critical in ensuring
the effectiveness of companies' environmental programs. They told us that
before the adoption of MARPOL and applicable U.S. laws, ships' crews could
legally discharge oil, garbage, and other potentially harmful wastes, and
the crews viewed such practices as a way of life at sea. Even though fewer
illegal discharge cases by cruise ships have been reported over the last 6
years, the admission by one large company of continued illegal oil
discharges occurring as recently as 1998 suggests that not everyone's views
have completely changed.19
Coast Guard officials expressed optimism that the steps the cruise ship
industry has taken would address illegal discharges. The officials said the
ISM Code, which all cruise ship companies were required to adopt as of July
1998, would likely result in a more systematic and comprehensive approach to
stemming marine environmental pollution. In a larger sense, they said, they
were not as concerned about pollution by the cruise ship industry as they
were about pollution from other parts of the maritime industry, such as
cargo ships and tankers. Similarly, a CMC official said that while CMC is
critical of past illegal discharges by cruise ship companies, it has been
supportive of the cruise ship industry's voluntary actions, including
efforts to reduce the volume of plastics and other eventual waste items
brought onboard and to recycle glass, aluminum, and other types of waste.
Justice officials said the cruise industry needed to create a culture of
compliance. In their view, environmental compliance plans, such as those
required under their plea agreements, can help create such a culture. They
also said that to be effective, a plan must have the right elements, the
company must take it seriously by encouraging compliance and the
self-reporting of violations, and people must be designated who will ensure
that the plan is implemented. Otherwise, the plan is just a document. They
further noted that having an environmental compliance plan, agreeing to
outside audits of the plan's implementation, and sharing the results are not
only good business practices but can also be mitigating factors under
Justice's sentencing guidelines. While having an environmental compliance
plan, based on the ISM Code or other standards, does not guarantee the
elimination of future marine pollution incidents, Justice officials said a
company that adopts a plan--as a valued aspect of its corporate activity--is
much less likely to see environmental problems recur.
Justice and CMC officials raised concerns about several issues that are
emerging for certain types of wastes generated by cruise ships and need
further attention. Justice also identified several areas that may warrant
increased scrutiny by the Coast Guard and other cognizant agencies.
Justice's Concerns About Emerging Issues and Federal Oversight
One area that Justice officials believe should receive increased scrutiny by
the Coast Guard and other cognizant agencies in future cruise ship pollution
cases is the discharge of "gray water," which is untreated water from
showers, sinks, kitchen and laundry drains, dishwashers, and other areas of
a ship. Each year, cruise ships legally discharge millions of gallons of
gray water into both U.S. and international waters.
Justice recently prosecuted a large cruise ship company that was found to be
improperly disposing of printing shop, dry-cleaning, and photo lab wastes
into its gray water system. These wastes, which included potentially harmful
chemicals and toxic silver, were discharged into the sea along with the gray
water. According to Justice officials, apart from the potential criminal
violations related to toxic substances in gray water discharges, there may
be a need for the Coast Guard to review the regulatory definition of gray
water to evaluate whether the current regulations adequately address the
potential environmental hazards to marine life from gray water discharges.
Justice officials believe that a more comprehensive or explicit definition
of gray water may be needed that recognizes changes in the industry since
the regulations were written.
Industry representatives for the larger cruise ship companies told us they
are addressing gray water issues in a number of ways. Officials said they
have taken steps to identify and segregate hazardous materials to prevent
them from entering the gray water system. For example, they said that
photo-processing and dry-cleaning chemical wastes are collected and
off-loaded onshore and noted that the cleaning chemicals used in kitchens
and bathrooms are not caustic in their diluted forms. In addition, they
recently adopted a policy not to discharge gray water while ships are in
port and are exploring new technologies for treating gray water, including
the use of more sophisticated gray water filtration systems aboard ships.
However, the effectiveness of these efforts is unknown because there is
virtually no monitoring of gray water quality by any independent oversight
agency or organization before the water is discharged from cruise ships.
Justice officials are also concerned about three additional areas where they
say increased federal oversight of cruise ships by the Coast Guard and other
cognizant agencies may be warranted.
� Maintaining and operating pollution prevention equipment. According to
Justice officials, several cases have involved ships that, despite periodic
inspections, were determined to have chronically malfunctioning or
inoperable oily water separators that owners and operators failed to
maintain. This suggests, according to Justice officials, that future
inspections and investigations concerning this equipment should probe more
thoroughly into its condition and evaluate the adequacy of equipment
maintenance procedures.
� Falsifying oil record books. According to Justice officials, a number of
cases suggest that owners or operators have routinely fabricated entries in
their ship's oil record book to create the appearance of full compliance
with MARPOL's discharge limitations. Justice officials believe that enhanced
scrutiny of these logbooks on a periodic basis may be warranted and may also
help encourage broader compliance.
� Recording shoreside disposal of garbage and sludge. Recent case experience
has revealed that some ships were unable to produce any records documenting
what should be periodic off-loadings and disposal of plastics and oily
sludge from the ships to onshore disposal facilities, according to Justice
officials. They believe that more frequent reviews and analysis of these
records may identify violators and also deter other unlawful discharges.
Center for Marine Conservation's Concerns About Wastewater Discharges
A CMC official also expressed concern about gray water and black water
discharges. "Black water" is the effluent wastewater from a vessel's onboard
sewage system. CMC officials said that the annual discharge of millions of
gallons of gray water and black water may harm ecologically sensitive areas,
affecting such things as the long-term vitality of coral reefs.
Reports from recent third-party audits involving five ships of a large
cruise ship company support the CMC official's concerns about black water.
These reports noted that plastics from personal hygiene and other products
(e.g., toothbrushes, plastic bottles, disposable razors, feminine hygiene
products, etc.) were being flushed down toilets by passengers and entering
the black water system. Once in the system, the plastics could be discharged
into the sea with the black water because the ships' approved toilet vacuum
system did not have screening devices to remove debris, according to the
audit reports. The company involved is currently installing special filters
to prevent plastics and other solid materials from being discharged into the
sea, according to company officials. The audit reports also noted that
untreated sewage was discharged at sea when onboard sewage systems were down
for maintenance. Like gray water effluent, there is little, if any,
oversight over the contents of black water before it is discharged into the
ocean, according to Coast Guard officials. Coast Guard inspectors we talked
with said they rarely have time during scheduled ship examinations to
inspect sewage treatment equipment or filter systems to see if they are
working properly and filtering out potentially harmful contaminants.
In recent years, both federal agencies and cruise ship companies have taken
positive steps to develop plans, approaches, and/or hardware solutions to
improve environmental compliance. Yet even with the progress that has been
made so far, there are a number of areas where oversight could be improved.
Concerns related to marine pollution are emerging that may have a
significant impact on the environment and may require further attention by
both the cruise ship companies and federal oversight agencies. A key issue
is the purity of gray and black water, which is particularly relevant for
larger cruise ships, given the large volumes of this type of water they
discharge at sea.
The process for referring to other countries alleged discharge incidents
occurring outside U.S. jurisdiction (flag-state referrals) does not appear
to be working either within the Coast Guard or internationally. As evidenced
by the abrupt halt in flag-state referrals in 1995, the Coast Guard appears
to have given up efforts to develop these cases, perhaps because the
response rate from flag states has been so poor. However, the agency is
obligated under MARPOL to take action on these cases when they occur. In
addition, the relatively poor response rate from other countries on alleged
discharge incidents is not in conformance with international agreements
facilitated by IMO and undermines efforts to stem pollution of the world's
oceans.
The Coast Guard may be able to improve its detection of illegal marine
pollution incidents by modifying its aircraft surveillance, flying over
water rather than land, where possible, when traveling to and from other
primary missions. This change could provide more coverage of shipping lanes
frequented by cruise ships and other commercial vessels and could strengthen
the deterrent effect of this detection method. Such initiatives are being
studied in one Coast Guard district, but formal action has not yet been
taken.
To improve oversight of the cruise ship industry, we recommend that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to take
the following steps:
� Initiate discussions with the cruise ship industry, other federal and
state agencies, and environmental groups, as appropriate, on the need for
improved water quality standards for gray water and black water discharged
from cruise ships and other vessels and assess the need to periodically
monitor the water quality of these discharges.
� In its capacity as a lead agency for the United States at the
International Maritime Organization, the Coast Guard should work vigorously
within the organization, using whatever means are available, to encourage
the member countries to comply with procedures requiring flag states to
respond when pollution cases are referred to them. To effectively accomplish
this, the Coast Guard needs to renew efforts to develop and refer to the
State Department alleged pollution cases occurring outside U.S. jurisdiction
and make greater efforts to periodically follow up on these alleged cases.
� Reexamine ways--within existing resources and without detracting from
other primary missions--to provide more effective aircraft surveillance of
cruise ships and other commercial vessels.
We provided a draft of this report to the Coast Guard, the Department of
Justice, EPA, the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Commerce, the International Council of Cruise Lines, and the
Center for Marine Conservation for their review and comment. All of these
agencies and organizations generally concurred with the facts presented in
the draft report. The Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, the Department
of State, the International Council of Cruise Lines, and the Center for
Marine Conservation specifically commented on and agreed with the draft
report's conclusions and recommendations. The Department of Commerce, EPA,
and the Department of Agriculture did not specifically comment on the draft
report's conclusions and recommendations. Written comments from the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and the Center for Marine
Conservation are in appendixes VIII through X.
Several agencies provided other information to supplement the facts
presented in the draft report. In commenting on the draft report, EPA
maintained that the draft report downplayed EPA's leadership in the field of
marine debris. We added and modified information in the report to clarify
EPA's role in the marine debris area. The Department of Justice, the
Department of State, and the Center for Marine Conservation also advised us
about the importance of ensuring that the Coast Guard has adequate resources
to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Justice and the Center expressed
concern that the Coast Guard's existing resources may not be adequate to
provide improved oversight of marine pollution. The State Department noted
that budget cuts over the past 3 to 5 years have reduced the Coast Guard's
resources to such extent that it is now extremely difficult for the Coast
Guard to perform its marine environmental protection mission as efficiently
as it once did. In addition, Justice and the Center raised concerns that
insufficient Coast Guard resources could be associated with the decline in
reported discharge incidents. While we regard resource constraints as a
valid reason for a decline in reported incidents, there are likely to be
many possible reasons for the decline. Such possible reasons include better
compliance by ships' owners and operators and improvements in technology
that could decrease the likelihood of discharge incidents. Largely because
of constraints on our time, data, and resources for performing this type of
analysis, we did not include such an analysis in our review. The Center also
emphasized that sedimentation pollution caused by the drafts of larger ships
stirring up bottom sediment can be harmful to the marine environment. The
Center added that U.S. government ships should not be exempt from MARPOL's
standards, that fines and penalties for marine pollution incidents were too
low to be effective, and that a review of the strategies for imposing fines
is needed. While these all may be valid issues, they were beyond the scope
of this review.
These agencies and organizations all provided technical clarifications to
the draft report, which were incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted our work from March 1999 through January 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix VII contains
details of the scope and methodology of our review.
As you requested, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan
no further distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of this
letter. We will then send copies to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation;
Admiral James M. Loy, Commandant of the Coast Guard; the Honorable Janet
Reno, Attorney General; the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of
State; the Honorable Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; the
Honorable William M. Daley, Secretary of Commerce; the Honorable Carol M.
Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable Jacob
J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. Copies will be made available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-2834. Appendix XI lists key contacts and contributors to this
report.
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Transportation Issues
Illegal Discharge Incidents−Marine Violation and Pollution Ticket
Cases−by Cruise Ships in U.S. Waters, 1993-98
Continued from Previous Page
Ship's name Owner/operator/
and flag Description and Disposition headquarters Detection
state date of incident of case location source
30-40 plastic
garbage bags
found 35 miles
Regent offshore from Regency Cruises,
Rainbow Ozona, FL, were Prosecuted by Inc. 3rd party
Bahamas linked to the Justice (Not operating)
Regent Rainbow by
their contents.
2/4/93
Passengers
witnessed several
incidents of
illegal dumping
Regent Sea of garbage, Prosecuted by Regency Cruises,
Bahamas including Justice Inc. 3rd party
plastic, in the (Not operating)
Gulf of Mexico,
off the coast of
Tampa, FL.
2/14/93
The ship
discharged an
undetermined
Viking quantity of oil, Palm Beach
Princess creating a sheen Prosecuted by Cruises USCG
Panama (approximately 3 Justice Riviera Beach, FL overflight
miles long) in
the Atlantic
Ocean Contiguous
Zone. 2/21/93
One quart of oil
was discharged
into Elliot Bay,
Noordam WA, after the Holland America
Netherlands oily water $500 Line Self
Antilles separator failed. Seattle, WA
The ship was in
dry dock at the
time. 5/14/93
A plastic bag
full of garbage
Golden discovered in Royal Cruise Line
Odyssey Endicott Arm, AK, $1,500 (Now Norwegian 3rd party
Bahamas was traced by its Cruise Line)
contents to the Miami, FL
Golden Odyssey.
6/24/93
A spill of
approximately 20
gallons of oil
Europa Jet into the Thames Europa Cruises of
Bahamas River, CT, was $750 Florida 3rd party
linked by Madeira Beach, FL
chemical analysis
to the Europa
Jet. 7/7/93
After a hose
connection
failed,
approximately
300-400 liters
Majesty of (75-100 gallons) Royal Caribbean
the Seas of lube oil $3,750 Cruises, Ltd. Self
Norway drained into a Miami, FL
gray water tank
and was
discharged into
the Port of
Miami, FL.
7/11/93
Approximately 10
gallons of marine
diesel oil was
Golden discharged into Birka Cruises
Princess San Francisco $1,000 (Not operating in Self
Bahamas Bay, CA, because U.S.)
a tank was
overfilled.
7/23/93
264 gallons of
lubricating oil
was discharged
Star into Taiya Inlet, Princess Cruises,
Princess AK, after a $100 Inc. Self
Liberia propeller shaft Los Angeles, CA
seal was broken
by a fishing
line. 7/28/93
A spill of
500-1,000 gallons
of oil in San Cross
Med-Maritime,
Pacific Star Diego Bay, CA, Prosecuted by Inc.
Greece was linked by Justice Starlite Cruises, 3rd party
chemical analysis
to the bilge tank Inc.
of the Pacific (Not operating)
Star. 8/9/93
In two instances,
passengers
witnessed illegal
discharges of
Regal garbage, International
Empress including $5,000 Shipping Partners 3rd party
Bahamas plastic, into Miami, FL
coastal waters
approximately 12
and 25 miles from
shore. 9/12/93
A spill of
approximately Discovery Cruise
30-40 gallons of Line
Discovery I waste oil into (Now operated by
Panama Port Everglades, $5,000 International 3rd party
FL, was linked by Shipping
chemical analysis Partners)
to the Discovery Miami, FL
I. 9/23/93
Oil-based paint
dripped into the
Regent harbor of Tampa Tony Travel
Rainbow Bay, FL, while $500 (Regency Cruises, USCG
Bahamas the ship's hull Inc.)
was being (Not operating)
painted. 9/24/93
A spill of 200 Resolved
gallons of fuel pursuant to a
plea
Pacific Star in San Diego Bay, agreement for Starlite Cruises,
Greece CA, was linked by the 8/9/93 Inc. 3rd party
chemical analysis (Not operating)
to the Pacific spill by the
Star. 10/21/93 Pacific Star.
See app. III.
The ship was
observed pumping Dolphin Cruise
oil into the Lines, Inc.
Dolphin IV water while en (Now operated by USCG
Panama route, $5,000 International overflight
approximately 5 Shipping
miles from the Partners)
U.S. coast. Miami, FL
11/15/93
Approximately 25
gallons of waste
oil spilled into
Santiago de the Mobile River, Ferry Charter
Cuba AL, during $1,100 Florida, Ltd. Self
Bahamas pumping of bilge (Not operating)
slops. The ship
was in dry dock.
12/6/93
Approximately 20
gallons of diesel
Westward fuel spilled from Norwegian Cruise
Bahamas a fuel vent $2,500 Line Self
during transfer Miami, FL
operations.
12/20/93
A hydraulic
connector failed,
causing
approximately 1
Fair gallon of Princess Cruises,
Princess hydraulic oil to $500 Inc. Self
Liberia spill into Los Los Angeles, CA
Angeles Harbor,
CA, during
operation of the
ship's crane.
1/21/94
Approximately 210
gallons of fuel
oil was
Golden discharged into Birka Lines A.B.
Princess Los Angeles $4,000 (Not operating in Self
Bahamas Harbor, CA, when U.S.)
the ship's fuel
tank was
overfilled.
1/28/94
The ship ran
aground on St.
Starward John, VI, Norwegian Cruise
Bahamas spilling about $7,000 Line Self
100 gallons of Miami, FL
hydraulic oil.
2/10/94
Approximately 1
gallon of lube
oil entered the
Sea Princess Guam
Sea Princess water at Apra Corp.
Australia Harbor, Guam, $500 (No information USCG
when the ship's
oil holding tank available)
was overfilled.
2/22/94
A spill of about
150 gallons of
diesel fuel into
the Intracoastal National
Saint Lucie Waterway at Port Liquidators
Bahamas Everglades, FL, $3,000 (Not a USCG
was due to the ship-operating
rupture of a fuel company)
pipe and a leak
in a containment
area. 2/25/94
A discharge of
approximately 15
gallons of oily
bilge waste
Vistafjord during an Cunard Line, Ltd.
Bahamas internal transfer $3,000 Miami, FL 3rd party
was due to the
inadvertent
closing of a
holding tank
valve. 2/28/94
Fuel spilled into
San Juan Harbor,
PR, during a
Regent Sun transfer Regency Cruises
Bahamas operation because $4,000 (Not operating) Self
a valve on the
overflow tank was
left partially
open. 4/29/94
Oily waste was
discharged into
the Lynn Canal, The U.S.
AK, during the Attorney's
operation of the Office for
Golden ship's oily water the District Birka Lines A.B.
Princess separator because of Alaska (Not operating in 3rd party
Bahamas the crew ignored declined to U.S.)
alarms and failed prosecute
to notice that this case for
waste was being lack of
routed to a evidence.
nearly full tank.
5/19/94
A small amount of
oil leaked into
Gastineau
Seawise
Universe Channel, AK, from Foundations, Inc.
Liberia one of the ship's $250 (No information 3rd party
tenders when
equipment available)
malfunctioned.
7/6/94
One 5-gallon can
of red paint fell Premier Cruise
into Port Lines, Ltd.
Starship Canaveral Harbor, (Now operated by
Atlantic FL, during $1,000 International Self
Liberia loading and broke Shipping
open when it hit Partners)
the water. Miami, FL
7/14/94
Approximately 42
gallons of bunker
fuel oil was
spilled into San
Fair Francisco Bay, Princess Cruises,
Princess CA, during $3,000 Inc. Self
Liberia transfer Los Angeles, CA
operations
because of
overfilling.
7/21/94
Failure of the
oily water
separator caused
Westerdam a discharge of Holland America
Bahamas oil into Stephens Warning Line 3rd party
Passage, AK, Seattle, WA
while the ship
was under way.
7/26/94
Lube oil spilled
in the Gulf of
Regent Sea Alaska when the Regency Cruises
Bahamas lube oil cooler $5,000 (Not operating) 3rd party
failed, creating
a 26-mile sheen.
7/27/94
260 gallons of
hydraulic oil
Nieuw from the
Amsterdam propeller leaked Holland America
Netherlands when the ship was $1,500 Line Self
Antilles grounded off Seattle, WA
Gravina Point,
AK. 8/9/94
A spill of about
150 gallons of
oil into Port Jubilee of the
Saint Lucie Everglades, FL, Bahamas, Inc.
Bahamas was linked by $4,500 (Tropicana USCG
chemical analysis Cruises)
to the Saint Greenville, SC
Lucie. 8/15/94
The ship
discharged oily
waste 13 times in
10 days into
Alaskan waters
without first
processing it
Rotterdam through an oily Holland America
Netherlands water separator. Prosecuted by Line 3rd party
Antilles The ship also had Justice Seattle, WA
fixed, permanent
piping that
allowed oily
waste to be
discharged
directly
overboard. 9/2/94
Approximately 1
gallon of Premier Cruise
hydraulic oil Lines, Ltd.
Starship accumulated on (Now operated by
Majestic the deck and $1,000 International 3rd party
Bahamas spilled into the Shipping
water of East Partners)
Bay, Tampa, FL. Miami, FL
9/9/94
Oil-based paint
dripped into the
Emerald Amelia River, FL, Fernandina Cruise
Princess while the crew $500 Lines, Ltd. USCG
Panama was painting the Brunswick, GA
side of the ship.
9/12/94
The failure of a
heat exchanger
caused a
Golden discharge of Birka Lines A.B.
Princess approximately 10 $1,200 (Not operating in 3rd party
Bahamas gallons of U.S.)
lubricating oil
into Gastineau
Channel, AK.
9/13/94
An unknown
$5,600
Nordic quantity of oil Royal Caribbean
Prince was discharged Also Cruises, Ltd. 3rd party
Norway into Gastineau prosecuted by Miami, FL
Channel, AK.
9/22/94 Justice
The ship
discharged oily $4,000
Sovereign of bilge waste Royal Caribbean
the Seas approximately Also Cruises, Ltd. USCG
Norway 8-12 miles from prosecuted by Miami, FL overflight
San Juan Harbor, Justice
PR. 10/25/94
Approximately 2
gallons of Premier Cruise
oil-based paint Lines, Ltd.
Starship dripped into (Now operated by
Majestic Tampa Bay Harbor, $750 International USCG
Bahamas FL, during Shipping
painting of the Partners)
ship's hull. Miami, FL
11/17/94
A crew member
dripped oil-based
paint into the
Fair Port of Los Princess Cruises,
Princess Angeles/Long $250 Inc. USCG
Liberia Beach, CA, while Los Angeles, CA
painting the
ship's hull.
12/28/94
Approximately 25
gallons of marine
Nieuw gas oil spilled
Amsterdam into East Bay, Holland America
Netherlands FL, because a $2,500 Line Self
Antilles tank was Seattle, WA
overfilled during
a transfer
operation. 2/4/95
Approximately 10
barrels of waste
Star Odyssey oil and sewage Norwegian Cruise USCG
Bahamas spilled into $6,000 Line overflight
Southwest Pass, Miami, Florida
LA, during bilge
pumping. 2/14/95
About 20 gallons
of waste oil
leaked from a
Emerald hole in the Fernandina Cruise
Princess ship's hull onto $500 Lines, Ltd. Unknown
Panama the dock and into Brunswick, GA
the St. John's
River, FL.
2/28/95
Approximately 126
gallons of heavy
fuel oil spilled
Star Odyssey into the Norwegian Cruise
Bahamas Mississippi River $2,500 Line Self
because a tank Miami, Florida
was overfilled.
3/1/95
While the ship
was pumping
ballast water, a
Seabourn residue from the Seabourn Cruise
Pride bilge was flushed $500 Line USCG
Norway out into the Miami, FL
Intracoastal
Waterway in Port
Everglades, FL.
3/21/95
The ship's
Rotterdam bowthruster Holland America
Netherlands leaked about $250 Line Self
Antilles gallon of Seattle, WA
hydraulic oil.
5/27/95
A discharge of
approximately 60 Compania de
gallons of fuel Vapores (Owner);
oil on the Dolphin Cruise
Seabreeze I surface of San Lines, Inc.
Panama Juan Harbor, PR, $1,200 (Now operated by 3rd party
was linked by International
chemical analysis Shipping
to the Seabreeze Partners)
I. 6/7/95 Miami, FL
The ship ran
aground in Lynn
Star Canal, AK, Princess Cruises,
Princess rupturing some $800 Inc. Unknown
Liberia tanks and Los Angeles, CA
spilling 50-75
gallons of fuel
oil. 6/23/95
An open valve
caused bilge oil
to be pumped into
a bilgewater
Majesty of tank, and Royal Caribbean
the Seas approximately 1 $250 Cruises, Ltd. Unknown
Norway gallon was Miami, FL
discharged into
the Intracoastal
Waterway, FL.
6/25/95
A crew member
dripped oil-based
paint into the
Jubilee Port of Los Carnival Cruise
Liberia Angeles/Long $250 Lines USCG
Beach, CA, as the Miami, FL
crew painted the
ship's hull.
7/2/95
10 gallons of
oily bilgewater
Legend of was discharged Royal Caribbean
the Seas into Gastineau $1,000 Cruises, Ltd. 3rd party
Liberia Channel, AK, when Miami, FL
a bilge tank was
overfilled.
7/20/95
A hole in the
lube oil cooler
caused a
World Pioneer S.
Regent Star discharge of A. Panama
Bahamas approximately 10 $250 (No information Self
gallons of lube
oil into Whittier available)
Harbor, AK.
7/23/95
While the decks
of the ship were
being washed World Pioneer S.
Regent Star down, about 5 A. Panama
Bahamas gallons of lube $500 (No information Self
oil washed into available)
Whittier Harbor,
AK. 7/27/95
Approximately 1
gallon of diesel
fuel leaked into
Tropicale Tampa Bay, FL, Carnival Cruise
Liberia through a hole in $250 Lines Self
the fuel tank of Miami, FL
a lifeboat.
8/6/95
Approximately 20
gallons of
hydraulic oil was MSJ Shipping
discharged into Limited
Scandinavian the Intracoastal (Now Discovery
Dawn Waterway, Port $1,000 Cruises; operated USCG
Bahamas Everglades, FL , by International overflight
through a leak in Shipping
the seals of the Partners)
propeller hub. Miami, FL
8/11/95
Crew members
dripped oil-based
Discovery paint into the DFDS Seaways
Sun Port of Miami, $250 (Bahamas), Ltd. 3rd party
Panama FL, as they (No longer
painted the operating)
ship's hull.
8/30/95
While in dry
dock, the ship
discharged
approximately 5
Holiday gallons of waste Carnival Cruise
Panama oil through the $250 Lines Unknown
overboard Miami, FL
discharge because
a valve was in
the wrong
position. 12/9/95
The ship spilled
approximately 50
Dolphin IV gallons of fuel Canaveral Cruise
Panama oil into Port $625 Lines Self
Canaveral, FL. Miami, FL
2/4/96
Garbage,
including
plastic, washed
Cunard ashore on St.
Countess Croix, VI, and Warning Cunard Line, Ltd. 3rd party
Bahamas identifying Miami, FL
information
linked it to the
Cunard Countess.
2/6/96
A spill of
approximately 200 Premier Cruise
gallons of oil in Lines, Ltd.
Starship Port Canaveral, (Now operated by
Oceanic FL, was linked $2,500 International 3rd party
Bahamas through chemical Shipping
analysis to the Partners)
Starship Oceanic. Miami, FL
2/7/96
Food waste mixed
with garbage was
Meridian illegally Celebrity Cruises
Bahamas discharged into Warning Miami, FL USCG
Crown Bay, St.
Thomas, VI.
3/24/96
The ship spilled
approximately 1
Queen gallon of fuel Seabourn Cruise
Odyssey oil into the $250 Line 3rd party
Bahamas Caribbean Sea, Miami, FL
St. Croix, VI.
3/30/96
A spill of about
80 gallons of oil
into the Port of Jubilee of the
Tropicana Miami, FL, was Bahamas, Inc.
Bahamas linked by $5,000 (Tropicana 3rd party
chemical analysis Cruises)
to the Tropicana. Greenville, SC
4/17/96
Approximately 150
gallons of oil Dolphin Cruise
was discharged Lines, Inc.
Oceanbreeze into Biscayne (Now operated by
Liberia Bay, FL, during $17,500 International Self
deballasting Shipping
operations. Partners)
4/29/96 Miami, FL
A spill of
approximately 70
gallons of oil in Kloster Cruise,
Leeward the Port of Ltd.
Panama Miami, FL, was $4,000 (Now Norwegian Self
linked to the Cruise Line)
Leeward by Miami, FL
chemical
analysis. 5/6/96
About 1 gallon of
fuel was
discharged into
the Port of Kloster Cruise,
Leeward Miami, FL, when a Ltd.
Panama hose was being $250 (Now Norwegian Self
disconnected Cruise Line)
during a fuel Miami, FL
transfer process.
7/5/96
About 15 gallons
of oil leaked
into the St. Louisiana Cruise,
La Cruise John's River, FL, Ltd.
Panama over 11 days $1,500 Atlantic Beach, USCG
while the ship FL
was in port.
8/9/96
A crew member
spilled
approximately 1/2
Song of pint of oil-based Royal Caribbean
Norway paint into the $250 Cruises, Ltd. USCG
Norway Port of Los Miami, FL
Angeles/Long
Beach, CA.
9/22/96
A leak in a
hydraulic line
caused a
Viking discharge of Royal Caribbean
Serenade approximately 5 $250 Cruises, Ltd. Self
Liberia gallons of Miami, FL
hydraulic fluid
into San Pedro
Bay, CA. 9/30/96
Overfilling a
waste oil tank
caused a spill of
approximately 40 Prime Express
Ukraina gallons of waste Cruise Company
Ukraine oil into the $10,000 Ft. Lauderdale, USCG
Intracoastal FL
Waterway at Port
Everglades, FL.
10/30/96
Lube oil tanks
overflowed during
filling, causing
Sundream a spill of Royal Caribbean
Bahamas approximately 65 $1,000 Cruises, Ltd. 3rd party
gallons into the Miami, FL
Patapsco River,
MD. 2/28/97
A faulty valve in
a ballast line
containing oil
Radisson residue caused a Barber Ship
Diamond discharge of $1,000 Management Self
Finland approximately 10 Kuala Lumpur,
gallons of oil Malaysia
into San Juan
Bay, PR. 3/3/97
Approximately 10
gallons of waste
oil spilled into
Radisson San Juan Bay, PR, Barber Ship
Diamond because a valve $3,000 Management Self
Finland connecting the Kuala Lumpur,
bilge and ballast Malaysia
systems was left
open. 3/6/97
Approximately
76-100 gallons of
diesel spilled Services Et
Club Med 1 into San Juan Transports
Bahamas Harbor, PR, $3,000 Cruises Self
during a routine Harfleur, France
transfer of bulk
oil. 3/12/97
Approximately 80
gallons of black Dolphin Cruise
diesel oil was Lines, Inc.
Sea Breeze I discharged into (Now operated by
Panama St. Thomas $1,000 International Unknown
Harbor, VI, from Shipping
the ship's sewage Partners)
tank vent. 6/5/97 Miami, FL
While painting
the side of the
ship, a crew
member spilled
Holiday approximately 1/2 Carnival Cruise
Panama gallon of $250 Lines USCG
oil-based paint Miami, FL
into Los Angeles
Harbor, CA.
7/14/97
A spill of 30
gallons of oil in
Regal Port of Miami, International
Voyager FL. was linked to $1,000 Shipping Partners 3rd party
Bahamas the Regal Voyager Miami, FL
by chemical
analysis. 9/24/97
During a transfer
of waste oil,
Nordic approximately 1 Royal Caribbean
Empress gallon of oil $625 Cruises, Ltd. USCG
Liberia spilled into San Miami, FL
Juan Harbor, PR.
12/8/97
Approximately 1
gallon of lube
oil spilled into
Liberty II Sheepshead Bay, Sea Co, Ltd.
St. Vincent NY, because a Warning (No information 3rd party
lube oil cooler available)
was broken.
2/23/98
About 2 gallons
of diesel fuel
Acqua entered the New Acqua Azzurra
Azzurra River, FL, from $250 Maritima Ltd. USCG
St. Vincent the ship's (No information
generator available)
exhaust. 2/21/98
210 gallons of
oil spilled into
Statendam the Los Angeles Holland America
Netherlands Main Channel, CA, $800 Line Self
when contaminated Seattle, WA
ballast water was
released. 3/29/98
Leaking rivets
caused the ship
Stella to discharge 5 Royal Olympic
Solaris gallons of diesel $250 Cruises Unknown
Greece fuel into the Piraeus, Greece
Galveston Ship
Channel, TX.
3/27/98
During a fuel
transfer,
approximately
26-30 gallons of
Island Dawn fuel discharged International
Bahamas into the $2,125 Shipping Partners Self
Intracoastal Miami, FL
Waterway, Port
Everglades, FL.
4/9/98
Approximately 1/2
gallon of
hydraulic fluid
was discharged
Tropicale into the waters Carnival Cruise
Liberia of East Bay, $250 Lines Self
Tampa Bay, FL, Miami, FL
during testing of
the ship's
hydraulic
winches. 5/4/98
A hydraulic line
ruptured,
Statendam discharging 1 Holland America
Netherlands gallon of oil $250 Line Self
into the Tongas Miami, FL
Narrows, AK.
6/30/98
Approximately 30
gallons of lube
oil was Kloster Cruise
Norwegian discharged into Ltd.
Star Barbours Cut $625 (Now Norwegian Self
Bahamas Channel, TX, when Cruise Lines)
a tank was Miami, FL
overfilled.
8/2/98
About 200 gallons
of fuel oil was
spilled into the
Island Intracoastal Meridian Ship
Adventure Waterway, Port $5,000 Managers Self
Bahamas Everglades, FL, Ft. Lauderdale,
during transfer FL
operations.
9/23/98
Alleged Pollution Discharge Incidents by Cruise Ships Referred to Flag
States, 1993-98
Continued from Previous Page
Ship's name Disposition of Owner/operator
and flag Description and case and Detection
state date of incident headquarters source
location
A Coast Guard
aircraft observed
a ship trailing a
7-nautical-mile
Nordic slick and Reasonable Royal
Empress videotaped the doubt/ no Caribbean USCG
Liberia incident. The ship action taken Cruises, Ltd. overflight
was located midway Miami, FL
between Bimini,
Bahamas and the
South Florida
coast. 2/1/93
A passenger
videotaped
garbage, including
plastics, being
Statendam illegally Acknowledgement Holland 3rd party
Bahamas discharged into only America Line report
the water between Seattle, WA
the Panama Canal
and Golfo Dulce.
2/1/93
Using Forward
Looking InfraRed
equipment, a Coast
Ecstasy Guard aircraft Reasonable Carnival USCG
Liberia observed and doubt/ no Cruise Lines overflight
videotaped a ship action taken Miami, FL
trailing a
several-mile-long
slick. 4/11/93
A Coast Guard
aircraft observed
and videotaped a
ship trailing a
Seaward 3-nautical Acknowledgement Norwegian USCG
Bahamas mile-slick as the only Cruise Line overflight
ship traveled Miami, FL
approximately 11
nautical miles off
Key Biscayne, FL.
4/11/93
A passenger
reported that the
ship's crew had Dolphin Cruise
illegally Lines
(Now operated
Seabreeze discharged No flag state by 3rd party
Panama garbage, including response International report
plastics, into the
water while the Shipping
ship was en route Partners)
to San Juan, PR. Miami, FL
5/5/93
A Coast Guard Premier Cruise
aircraft observed Lines, Ltd.
Starship a ship trailing a Reasonable (Now operated
Atlantic -mile sheen as the doubt/will have by USCG
Liberia ship traveled 4 operators do International overflight
miles off the ship survey Shipping
Bahamas. 5/6/93 Partners)
Miami, FL
A Coast Guard Premier Cruise
aircraft observed Lines, Ltd.
Starship a ship trailing a (Now operated
Oceanic 6-8-nautical-mile Acknowledgement by USCG
Bahamas sheen in New only International overflight
Providence Shipping
Channel. 6/8/93 Partners)
Miami, FL
Passengers
reported that the
ship's crew had
illegally
Britanis discharged Fine (amount Celebrity 3rd party
Panama garbage, including unknown) Cruises report
plastics, into the Miami, FL
Gulf of Mexico
outside U.S.
jurisdiction.
6/10/93
A Coast Guard
aircraft observed
Crown Jewel a ship trailing an No flag state Cunard Line, USCG
Panama 8-nautical-mile response Ltd. overflight
sheen 35 miles Miami, FL
west of Freeport,
Bahamas. 6/21/93
Passengers Dolphin Cruise
reported that the Lines
ship's crew had (Now operated
Oceanbreeze illegally No flag state by 3rd party
Liberia discharged response International report
garbage, including Shipping
plastics, into the Partners)
water. 1/5/94 Miami, FL
A Coast Guard
aircraft observed Discovery
and videotaped a Cruise Line
(Now operated
Discovery I ship trailing a No flag state by USCG
Panama 2-nautical-mile response International overflight
slick. The ship
was en route to Shipping
the Bahamas. Partners)
5/9/94 Miami, FL
Passengers Dolphin Cruise
reported that the Lines
ship's crew had (Now operated
Seabreeze I illegally No flag state by 3rd party
Panama discharged response International report
garbage, including Shipping
plastics, into the Partners)
water. 7/26/94 Miami, FL
Passengers
reported that the
ship's crew had
Britanis illegally Insufficient Celebrity 3rd party
Panama discharged evidence/no Cruises report
garbage, including action taken Miami, FL
plastics, into the
water. 11/10/94
A Coast Guard
aircraft observed
and videotaped a
Star of ship trailing a Ulysses
Texas 1.8-nautical-mile No flag state Cruise, Inc. USCG
Greece sheen-as the ship response (Not overflight
traveled in the operating)
North Atlantic.
3/28/95
A Coast Guard
Royal aircraft observed Norwegian
Majesty and videotaped a No flag state Cruise Line USCG
Panama ship trailing a response Miami, FL overflight
3-nautical-mile
sheen. 4/7/95
A passenger Dolphin Cruise
reported that the Lines
ship's crew had (Now operated
Seabreeze I illegally No flag state by 3rd party
Panama discharged response International report
garbage, including Shipping
plastics, into the Partners)
water. 4/8/95 Miami, FL
A Coast Guard SeaEscape
Cruises, Ltd.
Scandinavian aircraft observed (Now New
Dawn and videotaped a Violation not SeaEscape USCG
Bahamas ship trailing a proven Cruises, Ltd.) overflight
3-nautical-mile
sheen. 4/21/95 Ft.
Lauderdale, FL
Violations Involving Pollution Incidents by Cruise Ships Prosecuted by the
Department of Justice, 1993-98
Continued from Previous Page
Ship's name Owner/operator/
and flag Description and Disposition of headquarters Detection
state date of incident case location source
1995 criminal
plea agreement.
The company was
fined $250,000
and placed on
probation for 1
year with the
following
conditions. The
company was to:
(1) spend
The ship's crew $250,000 on
knowingly equipment to
discharged reduce the
plastic bags of volume of
Regent garbage within garbage on its Regency
Rainbow the U.S. fleet, (2) Cruises, Inc. 3rd party
Bahamas exclusive implement an (Not operating)
economic zone off environmental
the coast of compliance plan
Florida. (ECP), and (3)
1-2/93 publish a
letter of
public apology.
(The plea
agreement
included the
illegal
disposal of
plastics from
the Regent
Sea−see
below.)
The ship's crew
knowingly
discharged
plastic bags of See the
Regent Sea garbage within disposition of Regency
Bahamas the U.S. this case under Cruises, Inc. 3rd party
exclusive the Regent (Not operating)
economic zone off Rainbow case.
the coast of
Florida.
1-2/1993
1994 criminal
plea agreement.
The company was
fined $10,000
and required to
500-1,000 gallons repay the Coast
of oil was Guard $56,000
negligently for its costs
to clean up the Cross Med
Pacific discharged into spill. The Maritime, Inc.
Star San Diego Bay, company was Starlite 3rd party
Greece CA, and linked by also required Cruises, Inc.
chemical analysis
to the bilge tank to purchase a (Not operating)
of the Pacific new oil skimmer
Star. 8/8/93 (valued at
$40,000) for
the Coast
Guard's Marine
Safety Office
in San Diego,
CA.
1998 criminal
plea agreement.
The company was
fined $8
million ($1
million of
which was
designated to
the National
Fish and
Wildlife
Foundation.) In
On Oct. 25, 1994, addition, the
the Sovereign of company was
the Seas was placed under a
5-year
Sovereign identified probation
of the Seas discharging oily during which it
Norway bilge waste was required to
approximately
implement an
And four 8-12 miles from ECP. The
other Royal San Juan Harbor, company was
Caribbean PR. Records also also required
Cruises, show that the to (1) hire a
Ltd. (RCCL) ship's engineers senior vice
ships: routinely president to
discharged oily
oversee the
Monarch of bilge waste ECP, (2) hire
the Seas overboard instead an outside Royal Caribbean USCG
Norway of processing it independent Cruises, Ltd. overflight
through the Miami, FL
environmental
Song of ship's oily water consultant to
America separator. In conduct
Norway addition, environmental
employees on this
audits, (3)
Nordic and four other file quarterly
Prince RCCL ships reports with
Norway falsified oil the courts and
record books and
various federal
Nordic made false agencies
Empress statements to the regarding these
Liberia Coast Guard to audits, and (4)
conceal illegal
discharge appoint a
practices by committee of
these ships. the board of
directors to
monitor RCCL's
environmental
policies.
(A $4,000 civil
penalty, noted
in app. I, was
assessed for
the Sovereign
of the Seas
discharge
only.)
In six federal 1999 criminal
plea agreement
Nine RCCL jurisdictions, for six federal
ships: the company pled jurisdictions.
guilty to charges
In total, the
Majesty of of fleetwide company was
the Seas practices of fined $18
Norway discharging million ($3.5
oil-contaminated
million
Nordic bilge waste, designated to
Empress regularly and the National
Liberia routinely Fish and
discharging
Wildlife
Nordic without a permit Foundation and
Prince wastewater $.2.5 million
Norway contaminated by to the National
pollutants
Park
Song of through its Foundation),
America ships' gray water placed on
Norway systems, and probation for a Royal Caribbean 3rd party
making false
new 5-year Cruises, Ltd. and USCG
Song of material period, and Miami, FL overflight
Norway statements to the required to
Norway Coast Guard. submit a
These practices
revised ECP
Sovereign occurred under the same
of the Seas fleetwide into terms and
Norway 1995 and occurred requirements as
on one ship as
provided under
Sun Viking late as 1998. the 1998 plea
Norway Among the agreement. (See
violations
above.)
Monarch of supporting this
the Seas guilty plea were (A $5,600 civil
Norway repeated oil penalty, noted
discharges from
in app. I, was
Grandeur of the Nordic Prince assessed for
the Seas into the waters the Nordic
Liberia of Alaska's Prince
Inside Passage
during 1994. discharge
only.)
Coast Guard
aircraft
personnel
observed and
filmed the ship
discharging oil
while en route to
Miami, FL. The
company pled
guilty to the
willful 1998 criminal
presentation of a plea agreement.
false oil record The company was
book for the ship fined $1
during a U.S. million. (The
Nordic Coast Guard terms of the Royal Caribbean
Empress pollution 1998 plea Cruises, Ltd. USCG
Liberia investigation. In agreement are Miami, FL overflight
addition, identical to
investigations those listed
revealed that the above for the
ship had been Sovereign of
fitted with a the Seas.)
bypass pipe,
allowing
employees to
discharge bilge
waste from the
ship without
first processing
it through an
oily water
separator. 2/1/93
1994 criminal
plea agreement.
The company was
fined $500,000
and sentenced
The ship's crew to a term of
knowingly probation,
discharged an during which it
undetermined was required to
quantity of oil, establish and
maintain an
Viking creating a effective ECP. Palm Beach
Princess 2.5-mile-long oil The company was Cruises USCG
Panama slick less than 4 also required Riviera Beach, overflight
miles from shore. FL
The ship's crew to submit to
also failed to annual audits
report the and provide
discharge. quarterly
2/21/93 reports to the
court and the
U.S. Coast
Guard
describing the
status of its
ECP.
The ship
repeatedly and
continuously
discharged oily
waste into 1998 criminal
Alaskan waters plea agreement.
without first The company was
processing it sentenced to 5
through an oily years'
water separator. probation,
Rotterdam The ship also had fined $1 Holland America 3rd party
Netherlands fixed, permanent million, Line (Crew
Antilles piping that required to pay Seattle, WA member
allowed oily $1 million in report.)
waste to be restitution to
discharged the National
directly Park
overboard. The Foundation, and
company also pled required to
guilty to failing develop an ECP.
to keep records
of oily mixture
discharges.
9/2/94
1994 criminal
plea agreement.
The ship's crew The company was
knowingly fined $75,000
discharged for the oil
plastic bags 2 discharge and
and 25 miles from $75,000 for the
Seabreeze I the U.S. shore. garbage Ulysses Cruises
Panama In addition, the discharge and (Not 3rrd party
ship negligently was required to operating.)
discharged oil pay $275,000 in
into the North restitution to
Atlantic 1 mile the National
from the U.S. Oceanic and
coast. 4/8/95 Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA).
Coast Guard
aircraft
personnel
observed and
videotaped the 1994 criminal
Star of ship emitting an plea agreement. Seaway Maritime
Texas oil sheen The company was (Not USCG
Greece approximately 2 fined $75,000 operating.) overflight
miles long and for the oil
150 feet wide in discharge.
the North
Atlantic Ocean
near Miami, FL.
3/28/95
Studies and Articles With Recommendations for Strengthening U.S. Enforcement
Efforts or Discouraging Illegal Discharges
1. Ardia, David S. "A Symposium on Implementation, Compliance and
Effectiveness: Does the Emperor Have No Clothes? Enforcement of
International Laws Protecting the Marine Environment." Michigan Journal of
International Law, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Winter 1998), pp. 497-567.
2. Baur, Donald C. and Suzanne Iudicello. "Stemming the Tide of Marine
Debris Pollution: Putting Domestic and International Control Authorities to
Work." Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1990), pp. 71-142.
3. Becker, Rebecca. "MARPOL 73/78: An Overview in International
Environmental Enforcement." Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review, Vol. 10 (Winter 1998), pp. 625-642.
4. Coast Guard: Enforcement Under MARPOL V Convention on Pollution Expanded,
Although Problems Remain (GAO/RCED-95-143, May 30, 1995).
5. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans--Controlling Garbage and Plastic
Wastes at Sea. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press, 1995.
6. Creating a Sea Change: The WWF/IUCN Marine Policy. Worldwide Fund for
Nature and the World Conservation Union, 1998, pp. 59-60.
7. Dehner, Jeffrey S. "Vessel-source Pollution and Public Vessels: Sovereign
Immunity vs. Compliance, Implications for International Law." Emory
International Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall 1995), pp. 507-552.
8. Report on the Adequacy of Existing Waste Management Systems to Handle
MARPOL 73/78 Waste. Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship-Generated Waste,
Report No. 5. International Maritime Organization, 1995/96.
9. Sahatjian, Laurie Crick. "MARPOL--An Adequate Regime? A Questioning Look
at Port and Coastal State Enforcement." Proceedings of the 1998
International Oil Spill Conference, 1998.
Status of Recommendations, Cited in Studies
and Articles, to Strengthen U.S. Enforcement Efforts or Discourage Illegal
Discharges
The following recommendations were taken from the studies and articles
listed in appendix IV and from interviews with agency officials. The source
is referenced after each recommendation.
Continued from Previous Page
Recommended action/source Type of action Status of action reported by
the agency
U.S. Coast Guard
Partially implemented. 33
C.F.R. 151 requires
U.S.-flagged commercial
vessels over 40 feet, and
Annex V of the International
Convention for the
Require vessels lacking Prevention of Pollution from
comprehensive onboard garbage Ships (MARPOL) requires
management systems to off-load foreign-flagged vessels of
garbage at each U.S. port of Clarifying 400 gross tons or carrying
call. requirements 15 passengers or more, to
have an onboard garbage
(Source: App. IV − 5) management plan and
discharge records. The Coast
Guard (Captain of the Port)
can compel any noncompliant
vessel to off-load in port
and/or detain the vessel
until a satisfactory garbage
plan is implemented.
Implemented. Routine Coast
Guard port state control
examinations include checks
of documents, certificates,
manuals, and pollution
Examine garbage logs and prevention systems
onboard garbage handling and (including garbage logs).
treatment technologies during Clarifying The Coast Guard's marine
routine inspections. requirements safety manual and
instructions specify that
(Source: App. IV − 2,5) the scope of these exams can
be expanded if there are
clear grounds for suspecting
MARPOL noncompliance. An
examination book was
published with checklists on
MARPOL inspection items.
Partially implemented. The
United States "encourages"
U.S.-flagged vessels--as
specified by IMO--to report
inadequate port reception
facilities, and the Coast
Require vessel operators to Guard is changing its
report inadequate port regulations to require that
reception facilities (using port reception facilities
IMO forms) and follow up to Clarifying post signs providing
ensure that changes are made. requirements instructions and local Coast
Guard phone numbers to call
(Source: App. IV − 5) for reporting inadequate
facilities. The United
States also played an active
role in an IMO working group
that redesigned IMO's form
for reporting inadequate
reception facilities.
Partially implemented. The
Coast Guard does not perform
a detailed inspection of a
vessel's garbage log during
Match port receipts for port state control
garbage discharged to vessel examinations. However, if
garbage logs for Clarifying there are clear grounds to
inconsistencies. requirements believe that a vessel does
not comply with MARPOL Annex
(Source: App. IV − 5) V during a port state
control examination, the
Coast Guard boarding officer
may expand the scope and
depth of the examination to
verify garbage logs.
Require ports to have the Not implemented. The Coast
necessary state permits as a Guard does not enforce state
condition of granting a requirements. Its current
certification of adequacy and regulations require
require port reception Clarifying consultation with EPA before
facilities to meet the requirements a certification of adequacy
Environmental Protection is issued. If EPA notifies
Agency's (EPA) standards. the Coast Guard that an
applicant is not in
(Source: App. IV − 5) compliance, a certification
will not be granted.
Partially implemented. The
Coast Guard's regulations
specify which ports must
provide reception facilities
and which must have
Determine how much certifications of adequacy.
waste-handling capacity is The application for the
adequate at particular ports certification includes
and mandate waste-handling calculations for determining
capacity sufficient to meet Clarifying waste-handling capacity, and
the needs of all vessels requirements Coast Guard personnel
expected to call. inspect reception facilities
for compliance. The Coast
(Source: App. IV − 2) Guard is also active in an
IMO working group that is
developing international
guidelines for determining
capacity, as well as related
port reception parameters.
Require garbage logs for Implemented. MARPOL V
foreign-flagged vessels home requires garbage logs on
ported in the United States. Clarifying foreign-flagged vessels of
requirements
at least 400 gross tons or
(Source: App. IV − 5) carrying 15 or more persons.
Implemented. The Notice of
Violation (ticket) program
Adopt a policy of issuing is no longer a pilot
tickets in civil cases if project. Regulations have
pilot projects show this been published, and the
streamlined enforcement Clarifying program is currently being
approach is successful. requirements used to process small oil
pollution and certain oil
(Source: App. IV − 5) and sewage pollution
prevention civil penalty
cases.
Implemented. The Coast Guard
Enlist the assistance of the coordinates port enforcement
National Marine Fisheries and response activities with
Service, the Mineral Mining other federal, state, and
Service, and state marine local authorities. The Sea
police in reporting MARPOL Improving Partners Campaign has been
marine discharge violations, reporting established to develop
and encourage reports of community awareness of
violations by the public. maritime pollution and to
improve compliance with
(Source: App. IV − 5) marine environmental
protection regulations.
Partially implemented. The
Coast Guard has two manuals
that provide field guidance
on the enforcement of
environmental statutes and
Work with the Departments of describe the agency's
State and Justice to enforce relationships with the
MARPOL aggressively against Departments of State and
foreign-flag violators and Justice. All civil case
pursue international referrals of MARPOL
resolution of any ambiguities Coordinating violations outside U.S.
concerning the rights of port enforcement jurisdiction are promptly
states to control pollution forwarded to the flag states
from vessels. (through the Department of
State) for investigation and
(Source: App. IV − 5) resolution. IMO is
developing a new edition of
the MARPOL compliance and
enforcement manual to assist
other port states with their
responsibility to control
pollution from users.
Not applicable. The Coast
Guard does not have the
Delegate Marine Plastic authority to delegate MARPOL
Pollution Research and Control enforcement authority to
Act's inspection authority to another federal or state
state marine patrols and other agency. The Coast Guard has
federal agencies, such as the Coordinating worked with APHIS inspectors
Department of Agriculture's enforcement to include a section on
Animal Plant Health Inspection MARPOL V garbage handling in
Service (APHIS). APHIS inspections, and
inspections indicating
(Source: App. IV - 2 ) noncompliance with
garbage-handling procedures
are turned over to the Coast
Guard for enforcement.
Partially implemented. The
Collaborate with APHIS to Coast Guard and APHIS share
develop, maintain, and use for information as necessary.
enforcement purposes, a Coast Guard officials do not
record-keeping system believe that developing a
incorporating records from Sharing shared database would help
vessel boardings, garbage information reduce illegal marine
logs, enforcement reports, and discharges by cruise line
port receipts. companies, and they report
that resources are not
(Source: App. IV − 5) available to accomplish this
task.
Not implemented. The Coast
Guard has determined that
companies' internal audit
reports should not be
reviewed as a detection
Review companies' internal tool. Coast Guard officials
audit reports as part of believe the internal audits
vessel examinations. Clarifying are to promote
requirements self-discovery and
(Source: Interviews) correction of noncompliance,
and companies would be less
inclined to report
nonconformance if they knew
internal audit reports would
be used to discover
violations.
Partially implemented. The
Coast Guard collects and
analyzes MARPOL data to
gauge its success in meeting
the agency's business plan
Issue periodic reports listing goal to reduce the amount of
enforcement actions, vessel-generated plastics
assistance provided by other and garbage. Coast Guard
agencies, and analysis of Sharing officials do not believe
data. information that publishing reports on
enforcement actions or
(Source: App. IV − 5) assistance would help reduce
illegal marine discharges by
cruise line companies; and
they report that resources
are not available to
accomplish this task.
Implemented. A standardized
Standardize MARPOL inspection examination book (CG-840) to
checklist. Clarifying assist Coast Guard boarding
requirements officers was published with
(Source: App. IV − 4) helpful checklists on MARPOL
inspection items.
Implemented. Actions taken
by the Coast Guard's civil
penalty hearing officers are
documented in the Coast
Guard's centralized Marine
Safety Information System
Ensure hearing exam case (MSIS), providing immediate
feedback is provided to feedback to local units on
districts and local units. Sharing the status of cases entered
information into the system. Cases that
(Source: App. IV − 4) are forwarded with
insufficient evidence are
immediately returned to the
district/unit that referred
them, and all cases are
returned after penalties
have been addressed and
collected.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture/ Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service
Implemented. APHIS'
ship-boarding report form
Integrate APHIS' regime as was amended to include
fully as possible with the MARPOL V
Coast Guard's MARPOL Annex V garbage-/waste-handling
implementation program and the Coordinating procedures. Instances of
system for managing enforcement identified noncompliance are
land-generated waste. referred to the Coast Guard
for enforcement. Feedback
(Source: App. IV − 4, 5) from the Coast Guard to
APHIS on actions taken is
poor.
Not implemented. APHIS'
regulations do not require
garbage to be off-loaded.
APHIS' legal authorities are
to prevent the introduction
Require cruise ships without of plant and animal
incinerators rated to burn diseases. If waste is
food waste to off-load handled properly onboard a
APHIS-regulated waste at U.S. Clarifying vessel, there is no risk of
ports of call. requirements introducing a plant or
animal disease. There are
(Source: App. IV − 5) specific requirements for
handling and disposing of
contaminated waste (if
off-loaded), namely
incineration or
sterilization with burial.
Implemented. APHIS has
requirements for compacted
waste. Clean waste (i.e.,
Develop standards for waste that is not
compacted waste. Clarifying contaminated by plant or
requirements animal matter) may be
(Source: App. IV − 5) off-loaded without
restriction. Contaminated
materials may be off-loaded
if they have been sterilized
or incinerated.
Department of Justice
Implemented. Justice has
jurisdiction for illegal
Take action under U.S. law to discharges and prosecutes to
prosecute MARPOL including the maximum extent permitted
violations that occur outside by law. Its jurisdiction for
U.S. territorial waters if Clarifying oil and hazardous waste
there is clear evidence of a requirements reaches no farther than the
discharge. exclusive economic zone for
foreign-flagged ships
(Source: Interviews) departing U.S. ports. Its
jurisdiction for discharges
caused by U.S. ships is
worldwide.
Implemented. Justice has
sought the imposition of
appropriate penalties in all
vessel cases and, where
Seek penalties for warranted, has requested the
non-compliance that remove the imposition of criminal fines
economic advantage gained from calculated pursuant to the
non-compliance. Clarifying loss- or gain-doubling
requirements provisions of the
(Source: App. IV − 3 and Alternative Fines Act. Where
interviews) appropriate, Justice will
continue to request criminal
fines that seek to remove
the economic advantage
achieved through unlawful
conduct.
Develop linkages with U.S.
agencies responsible for Implemented. Through
marine discharge enforcement extensive training and
to facilitate a coordinated coordination, Justice has
approach to detection, Coordinating developed linkages with the
investigation, and enforcement Coast Guard, the Federal
prosecution. Bureau of Investigation, and
EPA.
(Source: Interviews)
Department of
Commerce/National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Implemented. NOAA and EPA,
from 1988 to 1996,
coordinated the effort to
develop and initiate an
interagency public/private
marine debris pilot study
program. The efforts of this
program contributed to the
creation in 1996 of the
National Marine Debris
Establish a statistically Monitoring Program, a
valid, long-term monitoring statistically valid marine
program to gather and debris-monitoring program.
disseminate data on marine The program is in the
debris, including its Improving data initial stages of
transport and fate, the on marine implementation and is funded
accumulation of plastic on debris by EPA, coordinated by the
beaches, and wildlife Center for Marine
interactions. Conservation, and based on
the use of data collected by
(Source: App. IV − 5) dedicated volunteers. This
program will collect
information over a 5-year
period on the types and
amounts of debris found at
180 sites in the coastal
United States, including
Alaska and Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. NOAA has no current
role in monitoring marine
debris.
Environmental Protection
Agency
Partially implemented. Under
the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA
established regulations in
1979 (updated in 1991) to
ensure the safe disposal of
solid waste. These
regulations apply to the
disposal of garbage that is
off-loaded from vessels in
U.S. ports. The regulations
are self-implementing (i.e.,
implemented by states that
can demonstrate to EPA that
Incorporate the vessel garbage they have permit programs to
management system into the ensure disposal facilities'
system for managing Coordinating compliance with the
land-generated waste. enforcement regulations). As of June
1999, 48 states and
(Source: App. IV − 5) territories had EPA-approved
permit programs. RCRA
authorizes the states,
regional solid waste
authorities, and local
governments to regulate
other aspects of solid waste
management (e.g., collection
and storage). While RCRA
provides that EPA could
develop nonbinding technical
guidance for vessel garbage
management, this is not a
priority, and EPA has no
plans to prepare such
guidance.
Partially implemented. EPA
issued regulations in 1979
that provide guidelines to
assist states in the
development of solid waste
management plans. States
Require states to include in that submitted their plans
their solid waste management to EPA for approval or
plans the disposal of garbage received approval from EPA
from vessels docked at their Clarifying would be eligible for
ports. requirements financial assistance to
prepare or implement their
(Source: App. IV − 5) plans. Funds for financial
assistance have not been
appropriated since fiscal
year 1981, and there is no
incentive for states to
submit their plans for
review.
Not implemented. Other than
for the disposal of solid
waste, EPA does not have the
authority to establish
regulations that would
Establish technical standards require ports to manage
for reception facilities solid waste in a particular
appropriate to each type of Clarifying manner. RCRA gives that
port. requirements authority to the states and
regional/local authorities.
(Source: App. IV − 5) While EPA could issue
nonbinding guidance that
might or might not be
followed, it currently has
no plans to issue such
guidance.
Require commercial ports to
issue receipts for garbage
discharged at their facilities Not implemented. EPA does
and follow up on reports of Improving not have the authority to
inadequate port reception reporting issue regulations that would
facilities. require commercial ports to
have such receipts.
(Source: App. IV − 5)
U.S. Department of
Transportation/Maritime
Administration
Not implemented. Shortly
after this action was
recommended in the 1995
Clean Ships report, budget
reductions resulted in the
Develop and execute a research discontinuation of the
and development program that Maritime Administration's
addresses needs for efficient (MARAD) technology
and affordable onboard garbage assessment/research and
treatment equipment; development program. In
technology demonstration and Improving September 1999, the
information exchange; and technology Department of Transportation
operational, maintenance, and published An Assessment of
cost issues. the U.S. Marine
Transportation System, which
(Source: App. IV − 5) recommends strategic action
for the maritime
transportation system. The
Department plans to develop
a research and development
plan for issues related to
this system.
Partially implemented. In
meetings of interagency
working groups and the U.S.
delegation at IMO, MARAD has
participated actively in
Obtain technical support and support of internationally
be responsive to the needs of enforceable standards for
fleets operated by the Navy, minimizing the generation of
NOAA, and the Coast Guard; as Improving shipboard waste, furthering
well as the private sector. technology treatment and technologies,
and reducing illegal
(Source: App. IV − 5) discharges. MARAD
supported/coordinated
research and development
efforts with NOAA, the Navy,
and the Coast Guard in waste
minimization and reduction
technology.
Review and compare the extent
to which the Navy, the Coast
Guard, NOAA, and commercial
fleets have implemented waste Not implemented. MARAD
management practices to believes a review and
facilitate the exchange of Improving comparison could be helpful;
technical information, avoid technology however, MARAD does not
duplication of effort, and currently have the funding
maximize the return on or personnel available to do
research and development. such an analysis.
(Source: App. IV − 5)
Department of State
Partially implemented. IMO's
Marine Environmental
Protection Committee,
Reception Facilities Work
Group, is tasked with
developing methods to ensure
the adequacy of port waste
reception facilities
worldwide. In addition,
IMO's Technical Cooperation
Division is coordinating
efforts to improve reception
facilities in the wider
Caribbean region. The wider
Caribbean has been
Resolve, through IMO or other designated as a special area
avenues, the procedural under MARPOL V, but the
obstacles that block garbage designation is not in effect
off-loading at some foreign Clarifying because the region does not
ports. requirements have enough reception
facilities. When more such
(Source: App. IV − 5) facilities become available,
the designation will take
effect, and it will be
unlawful to discharge any
ship-generated garbage into
the Caribbean Sea and the
Gulf of Mexico. U.S.
officials have worked
closely with the World Bank
to ensure the availability
of loans/grants to construct
such facilities. However,
some cruise lines oppose the
fees necessary to keep the
reception facilities
operational.
Partially implemented. IMO
Draw attention to the need for collects such reports, as
an international data required by MARPOL, and
collection and reporting includes them in its annual
effort--through IMO--of MARPOL report. However, not all
violations and the Improving flag states have been
responsiveness of individual reporting submitting their reports to
flag state's to violations IMO. This issue has been
referred by port states. placed on the agenda for the
next meeting of the Flag
(Source: App. IV − 5) State Implementation
Subcommittee (scheduled for
Jan. 2000).
International Maritime
Organizationa
Partially implemented. IMO's
Marine Environmental
Encourage regional cooperation Protection Committee has
in establishing adequate port this task on its agenda as
facilities to handle waste and Coordinating part of the work for the
garbage. enforcement Reception Facilities Work
Group, and IMO's Technical
(Source: App. IV − 2, 8) Cooperation Division is
coordinating work on
reception facilities in the
greater Caribbean region.
Prepare more detailed Partially implemented. The
guidelines and provide Reception Facilities Work
assistance to port and Group has been tasked with
terminal operators in developing these types of
establishing efficient and Clarifying guidelines during the next
cost-effective reception requirements several sessions of IMO's
facilities. Marine Environmental
Protection Committee. Draft
(Source: App. IV − 2) guidelines were recently
completed.
Implemented. IMO has
established a system for
reporting inadequate
reception facilities, and
Create a system for reporting the forms used to report
inadequate port facilities. Improving inadequate reception
reporting facilities were recently
(Source: App. IV − 2) upgraded to make them more
"user friendly." Additional
work to improve reporting
continues within the
Reception Facilities Work
Group.
Improve the monitoring of
MARPOL compliance by requiring Partially implemented. The
the full reporting of (1) data Marine Environmental
and information on MARPOL Protection Committee's
violations and (2) the Improving Reception Facilities Working
penalties and enforcement reporting Group is developing
actions taken by port and flag guidelines to streamline and
states. improve this flag state/port
state reporting process.
(Source: App. IV − 9)
Use information-gathering and
information-disseminating
capabilities to create a
centralized system for
recording and tracking Sharing
enforcement actions and information No response.
distribute the information to
the widest possible audience.
(Source: App. IV − 7, 1)
Facilitate measures to prevent
marine discharges by providing
clearer guidelines for
prosecuting and assessing Clarifying
penalties for MARPOL requirements No response.
violations.
(Source: App. IV − 7)
Encourage the worldwide
ratification of MARPOL and Partially implemented. This
continue the development of is one of the main missions
improved environmental Coordinating of IMO's Marine
protection procedures. enforcement Environmental Protection
Committee, and this work
(Source: App. IV − 6) continues.
Partially implemented. At
sessions of the Marine
Environmental Protection
Committee, working and
drafting groups recently
Promote the continued finished drafting improved
identification and special and streamlined guidelines
protection of sensitive marine Improving data for identifying and
areas that are particularly at on marine protecting Particularly
risk from marine pollution. debris Sensitive Sea Areas. The
designation of a new
(Source: App. IV − 2, 6) Particularly Sensitive Sea
Area off the north coast of
Cuba was approved at the
last session. This effort is
on the committee's agenda
for the next several
sessions.
Create an organization to
gather information and assess
compliance. Sharing No response.
information
(Source: App. IV − 9)
Establish a clearinghouse for
data on the sources and Improving data
effects of marine debris. on marine No response.
debris
(Source: App. IV − 2)
aIMO acknowledged receipt of our request for comment but did not comment on
the status of recommended actions in this table that would fall under its
jurisdiction. The acknowledgement stated that under IMO's present practice,
the IMO Secretariat is not in a position to provide any opinion, views on,
or interpretation of the activities of IMO, the Marine Environment
Protection Committee, or a member government, unless so requested by the
member government. In its capacity as the lead U.S. agency in IMO matters,
the Coast Guard commented on the status of recommended actions under IMO's
jurisdiction.
Cruise Ship Companies Included in GAO's Review
Company name Number of ships Passenger capacity
Carnival Cruises 14 1,022-2,758
Celebrity Cruisesa 5 1,660-2,262
Cunardb 5 116-1,750
Holland America Linec 8 1,214-1,494
International Shipping Partnersd 16 490-2,044
Norwegian Cruise Line 11 800-2,032
Princess Cruises 10 640-2,600
Royal Caribbean International 11 1,961-2,772
Europa Cruises Corporatione 1 350
Tropicana Cruisesf 1 500
La Cruise 1 450
Palm Beach Casino Line 1 800
aThis company, while operating under the name of Celebrity Cruises, is owned
by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
bThis company, while operating under the name of Cunard, is owned by
Carnival Corporation.
cThis company, while operating under the name of Holland America Line, is
owned by Carnival Corporation.
dInternational Shipping Partners (ISP) provides the day-to-day technical
management and vessel operation for 16 cruise ships owned by 10 companies.
Two of the companies ISP manages and operates ships for owned vessels that
had illegal discharge violations cited by the Coast Guard between 1993-1998:
Discovery Cruises and Premier Cruises. Premier Cruises merged with Dolphin
Cruises, another company cited for illegal discharges, in 1993. ISP did not
begin managing most of Premier's ships until 1997.
eEuropa has four ships but currently operates only one; another is currently
not operating, and the company has a contract with a third party to operate
the other two ships.
fTropicana is owned by Collins Companies, Greenville, SC. This ship is
currently out of service.
Objectives, Scope and Methodology
The Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Commerce and the
House Committee on Government Reform asked us to review information on
illegal marine discharges from cruise ships calling at U.S. ports.
To identify the nature and scope of reported illegal discharge cases for
foreign-flagged cruise ships, we obtained data from the Coast Guard's Marine
Safety Information System (MSIS) and from records at the Departments of
State and Justice on illegal marine discharge cases identified from 1993
through 1998. We eliminated all MSIS cases that did not involve a cruise
ship, were not proven, or were closed for lack of evidence or for
administrative purposes (i.e., duplicate cases). We reviewed the State
Department's records to exclude cases that were not linked to
passenger/cruise ships, and we compared the records from MSIS, State, and
Justice to account for overlap among the records. We obtained additional
details on the cases from MSIS to ensure that we had sufficient information
to describe the nature of each incident. We obtained additional information
about the ships and companies involved in the incidents from various
sources, including interviews with company officials, Internet sources, and
cruise industry publications. We also contacted the Coast Guard's hearing
office for information on how the MSIS cases were resolved through the
agency's civil penalty process.
To determine what actions the Coast Guard and other agencies have taken to
prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges from
foreign-flagged cruise ships, we contacted officials from the Coast Guard,
Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Miami), the State Department, the Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Military Sealift Command, and
the U.S. Public Health Service. We asked agency officials about the role
their agency might play in the detection, prevention, investigation and
prosecution of illegal marine discharge cases. From these discussions, we
summarized the character of and efforts expended by the agencies to address
illegal marine discharge issues. To find published recommendations that
could strengthen U.S. enforcement efforts over illegal marine discharges and
/or discourage such activities in the future, we conducted a literature
search to identify reports, studies, and journal articles written in the
last 9 years. We then identified relevant recommendations from these studies
and had experts from the Center for Marine Conservation review the
recommendations for relevance and comprehensiveness. We distributed a list
of recommendations to federal and other officials who would be responsible
for implementing such recommendations and sought their comments on the
status of the recommendations. We did not intend the list to be a set of
actions that GAO recommends, but rather a list of actions that others have
proposed as meriting consideration.
To determine what actions cruise ship companies have taken to prevent future
illegal discharges, we first reviewed records and case files from the Coast
Guard and records from Justice to identify all of the cruise ship companies
that owned or operated cruise ships responsible for U.S. discharge incidents
that occurred from 1993 through 1998. We then analyzed each illegal
discharge incident by these ships to determine whether it appeared to be
accidental or intentional.20 Initially, we identified 18 companies with
incidents that we judged to be intentional or of indeterminate cause.
However, we did not contact 7 of these 18 companies because 4 are no longer
operating and 3 were acquired by or merged with another company already
identified on our list. We eliminated two other companies because they no
longer operate vessels themselves but instead contract with another company
(already on our list) for the management of their vessel operations.
Finally, we added three companies to our follow-up list. While they did not
meet the criteria for our original list of 18, they were large companies
that had experienced accidental discharges and represented a significant
segment of the cruise ship industry. In total, we identified 12 cruise ship
companies, both large and small.
After identifying these 12 companies, we interviewed officials from them in
person or by telephone. We visited the corporate offices of four cruise ship
companies and observed environmental compliance practices and procedures
aboard three cruise ships operated by three of these companies. We also
observed environmental compliance practices and procedures aboard two cruise
ships operated by two other companies. In addition, we met with and
interviewed officials from the International Council of Cruise Lines, the
trade association that represents the interests of 17 of the largest cruise
lines in the North American market. Finally, we discussed the steps being
taken by the companies with officials from the Coast Guard, Justice, and the
Center for Marine Conservation to obtain their views on these measures.
Comments From the Department of Commerce
Comments From the Department of Justice
Comments From the Center for Marine Conservation
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834
Randall B. Williamson (206) 287-4860
In addition to those named above, Andrew Bauck, Steve Gazda, Dawn Hoff,
David Hooper, Sterling Leibenguth, and Stan Stenersen made key contributions
to this report.
(348163)
Table 1: Illegal Discharge Cases in the United States and Alleged
Discharge Cases Referred to Flag States for Foreign-Flagged
Cruise Ships, 1993-98 9
Figure 1: Characteristics of Discharge Cases in U.S. Waters by
Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98 11
Figure 2: Methods of Detecting Illegal Discharge Cases in
U.S. Waters Involving Foreign-Flagged Cruise Ships, 1993-98 17
1. MARPOL currently contains six annexes, four of which pertain to
preventing pollution from vessels, including cruise ships. Annex I
(prevention of pollution by oil) entered into force in 1983, and Annex V
(prevention of pollution by garbage/plastics) entered into force in 1988.
Neither Annex IV (prevention of pollution from sewage) nor Annex VI
(prevention of air pollution from ships) has entered into force because they
have not been ratified by the requisite number of nations. In 1995, GAO
issued a report, Coast Guard: Enforcement Under MARPOL V Convention on
Pollution Expanded, Although Problems Remain ( GAO/RCED-94-143, May 30,
1995), regarding the Coast Guard's efforts to enforce Annex V.
2. In addition to MARPOL, the United States is party to four other
international conventions governing the safe operation of ships that,
according to Coast Guard officials, protect both people and the environment.
These conventions include the International Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea; the International Convention on Load Lines; the International
Convention on Standards, Certification and Watchkeeping; and the
International Labor Organization Convention No. 147, Concerning Minimum
Standards on Merchant Ships. The Coast Guard's vessel examination program
helps to ensure that foreign-flagged vessels comply with applicable U.S. and
international regulations.
3. 33 U.S.C. 1901-1911.
4. 33 U.S.C. 1319, 1321, 1322.
5. Depending on the severity of the pollution and the type of incident
(i.e., oil, garbage, etc.), U.S. criminal jurisdiction ranges from 3 to 200
nautical miles. Inside 3 nautical miles, the United States has complete
jurisdiction except on foreign vessels in "innocent passage." (A vessel is
in innocent passage when it is passing through a nation's territorial sea
without intending to stop or conduct certain operations within that
territorial sea.)
6. The MARPOL Convention does not apply to warships, naval auxiliary, and
other government ships used only for noncommercial service.
7. An illegal discharge case can be adjudicated through administrative,
civil, or criminal procedures, depending on the circumstances of the
discharge.
8. We separated the flag state cases from other violations because these
cases are referred outside the U.S. administrative and judicial processes
and we have little indication that the flag states have affirmed or denied
the alleged incidents. In contrast, the civil penalty and criminal cases are
all proven violations.
9. Of the 18 companies, 4 went out of business or could not be located, 3
merged or were acquired by other companies, and 2 contracted with a service
company to operate and manage their vessels for them.
10. Federal law requires persons in charge of vessels or certain facilities
that have spilled oil to report their spills or face additional penalties.
As a result, we identified cases in which a vessel operator or another
involved party reported a spill as a self-report. A third-party report is
typically provided by an uninvolved party who has come upon an incident.
11. Oily waste from a vessel's engines and water in the engine room are
collected and pumped through an oily water separator that removes most of
the oil; the cleansed water can then be legally discharged at sea if its oil
content is less than 15 parts of oil per 1 million parts of water.
12. The remaining 7 (of the 87) cases were prosecuted by Justice. Two of the
seven cases also received a civil penalty under the hearing program but were
referred for criminal matters.
13. Under international law, the United States, as a coastal state, can
institute proceedings against a vessel it believes has committed a violation
of international pollution standards inside its 200-mile exclusive economic
zone. However, these proceedings will be suspended if the flag state decides
to bring similar proceedings against the vessel within 6 months of the date
that the coastal state's proceedings began. Two exceptions allow the coastal
state to continue its proceedings: if there is major damage to the coastal
state or if the flag state has repeatedly disregarded its obligations as a
flag state to enforce MARPOL.
14. Justice officials explained that most maritime environmental statutes
contain both civil and criminal remedies; however, all of the 10 cases
discussed in this report were referred to Justice for criminal prosecution
and were prosecuted as criminal offenses.
15. The felony counts included conspiracy to discharge harmful quantities of
oil into U.S. waters, obstruction of justice, willful false statements to
the Coast Guard, and violations of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
16. To gather detailed information on cruise ship companies' actions to
prevent future illegal marine discharges, we concentrated on 12 companies.
Some of these companies were responsible for incidents that we judged to be
intentional acts or whose cause we could not clearly ascertain; others were
large companies representing a significant segment of the cruise ship
industry that were involved in accidental cases.
17. In Nov. 1993, IMO adopted Resolution A.741 (18), entitled "International
Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships (International Safety
Management [ISM] Code)."
18. Justice officials' comments focused on cruise ship companies that had
been prosecuted for criminal violations, while the Coast Guard and CMC
officials focused more generally on the cruise ship industry.
19. Justice officials told us that their policy does not allow them to
discuss ongoing investigations. As a result, we do not know whether any
illegal discharge incidents by cruise ships are currently under
investigation.
20. Our analysis of intentional and accidental cases was made solely to
establish a basis for determining which cruise ship companies we should
contact for follow up about the actions they have taken to reduce illegal
discharges. The analysis was not intended to be an evaluation of the
appropriateness of these cases for prosecution.
*** End of document. ***