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:

ï¿½ What are the nature and extent of reported illegal discharge cases for
foreign-flagged cruise ships from 1993 through 1998?

ï¿½ What efforts have relevant federal agencies made to prevent, detect,
investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges from foreign-flagged cruise
ships?

ï¿½ What actions have cruise ship companies with proven illegal discharge
violations taken to prevent future illegal discharges?

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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:

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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:

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ A ship's garbage record book was not completed and presented to the ship's
captain in a timely fashion.

ï¿½ 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,

ï¿½ replacing disposable plastic and Styrofoam cups and plastic stir sticks
with reusable/washable plastic cups and wood stir sticks that can be burned,

ï¿½ using less paper and plastic wrapping for some food items,

ï¿½ replacing individual plastic condiment packages with bulk dispensers, and

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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:

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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.

ï¿½ 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. ***