Order Code RL32450



# Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, **Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues**

**Updated February 6, 2008**

Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division

## Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues

**Summary**

The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing more than $32 billion inbenefits annually and generating more than 330,000 U.S. jobs, but also making th e environmental impact s of its activities an issue to many. Although cruise ship s represent a small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide, public atten tion to their environmental impacts comes in part from the fact that cruise ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry’s desire to promote a positive image.

Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” and the volume of wastes that they produce is comparably large, consisting of sewage; wastewater from si nks, showers, and galleys (graywater); hazardous wastes; solid waste; oily bilge water; ballast water; and air pollution. The waste streams generated by cruise ships ar e governed by a number of international protocols (especially MARPOL) and U.S. dom estic laws (including the Clean Water Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships), regulations, and standards, but there is no single law or rule. Some cruise ship waste streams appear to be well regulated, such as solid wastes (garbage and plastics) and bilge water. But there is overlap of some areas, and there are gaps in others. Some, such as graywater and ballast water, are not regulated (except in the Great Lakes), and concern is increasing about the impacts of these discharges on public health and the environment. In other areas, regulations apply, but critics argue thatthey are not stringent enough to address the problem — for example, with respectto standards for sewage discharges.
Environmental advocates have raised con cerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and they contend that enforcement is weak.

In 2000, Congress enacted legislation restri cting cruise ship discharges in U.S. navigable waters within the state of Al aska. California, Al aska, and Maine have enacted state-speci fic laws concerning cruise ship pollution, and a few other states have entered into voluntary agreements with industry to address management of cruise ship discharges. Meanwhile, th e cruise industry ha s voluntarily undertaken initiatives to improve pollution prev ention, by adopting waste management guidelines and procedures and researching new technologies. Concerns about cruise ship pollution raise issues for Congress in three broad areas: adequacy of laws and regulations, research needs, and oversight and enforcement of existing requirements. Legislation to regulate cruise ship discharges of sewage, graywater, and bilge water nationally was introduced in the 109 thCongress, but there was no further congressional action.

This report describes the se veral types of waste stream s that cruise ships may discharge and emit. It identifies the comp lex body of internati onal and domestic laws that address pollution from cruise ships. It then describes federal and state legislative activity concerning cruise ships in Alaskan waters and activities in a few other states, as well as current industry initiatives to manage cruise ship pollution. Issues for Congress are discussed.

### Contents

Introduction ......................................................1

Cruise Ship Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Applicable Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 International Legal Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Domestic Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sewage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Graywater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Bilge Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ballast Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Considerations of Geographic Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Alaskan Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Alaska State Legislation and Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Industry Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Oversight and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Lloyd’s Maritime Information Services, on the website of the Maritime International Secretaries Services, Shipping and World Trade Facts, at [http://www.marisec.org/ shippingfacts/keyfacts/]

2 International Council of Cruise Lines, “The Cruise Industry, 2005 Economic Summary.”

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “C ruise Ship White Paper,” August 22, 2000, p. 3. Hereafter, EPA White Paper. 

# Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues

**Introduction**

More than 46,000 commercial vessels — tankers, bulk carriers, container ships, barges, and passenger ships — travel the oceans and other waters of the world, carrying cargo and passengers for commer ce, transport, and recreation. Their activities are regulated and scrutinized in a number of respects by international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, includi ng those designed to protect against discharges of pollutants thatcould harm marine resources , other parts of the ambient environment, and human health. However, there are overlaps of some requirements, gaps in other areas, geographic differe nces in jurisdiction based on differing definitions, and questions about the adequacy of enforcement.

Public attention to the environmental impacts of th e maritime industry has been especially focused on the cruise industry, inpart because its ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry’s desire to promote a positive image. It represents a relatively small fraction of the entire shi pping industry worldwide. As of January 2008, passenger ships (which include cruise ships and ferries) composed about 12% of the world shipping fleet. 1 The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing more than $32 billion in total benefits annually and generating mo re than 330,000 U.S. jobs, 2 but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Since 1980, the average annual growth rate in the number of crui se passengers worldwide has been 8.4%, and in 2005, cruises hosted an estimated 11.5 million passengers. Cruises are especially popular in the United States. In 2005, U.S. ports handled 8.6 million cruise embarkations (75% of globa l passengers), 6.3% more than in 2004. The worldwide cruise ship fleet consists of more than 230 ships, and the majority are foreignflagged, with Liberia and Panama be ing the most popular flag countries. 3 Foreignflag cruise vessels owned by six comp anies account for nearly 95% of passenger ships operating in U.S. waters. Each year , the industry adds new ships to the total fleet, vessels that are bigger, more elaborate and luxurious, and that carry larger numbers of passengers and crew. Over th e past two decades, the average ship size has been increasing at the rate of roughly 90 feet every five years. The average shipCRS-2

4 Bell, Tom, “Experts: Mega-birth Needed fo r Cruise Ships,” Portland Press Herald, Sept. 28, 2007.

5 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Depart ment of Transportation, “Summary of Cruise Ship Waste Streams.”

6 U.S. General Accounting Office, Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain , GAO/RCED-00-48, February 2000. 70 pp. Hereafter, 2000 GAO Report.

7 Bluewater Network, Petition to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 17, 2000. The petition was amended in 2000 to request that EPA also examine air pollution from cruise ships; s ee discussion below (page 16). entering the market from 2008 to 2011 will be more than 1,050 feet long and will weigh more than 130,000 tons. 4

To the cruise ship industry, a key i ssue is demonstrating to the public that cruising is safe and healthy for passengers and the tourist communities that are visited by their ships. Cruise ships carrying several thousa nd passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” in part b ecause the volume of wastes produced and requiring disposal is greater than that of many small cities on land. During a typical one-week voyage, a large cruise ship (with 3,000 passengers and crew) is estimated to generate 210,000 ga llons of sewage; 1 million gallons of graywater (wastewater from sinks, shower s, and laundries); mo re than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid wa ste; and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. 5 Those wastes, if not properly treated and di sposed of, can pose risks to human health, welfare, and the environment. Environmen tal advocates have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and suggest that enforcement of existing laws is weak.

A 2000 General Accounting Office ( GAO) report focused attention on problems of cruise vessel compliance w ith environmental requirements. 6 GAO found that between 1993 and 1998, foreign-flag cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters. A few of the cases included multiple illegal discharge incidents occurring over the si x-year period. GAO reviewed three major waste streams (solids, hazardous chemicals, and oily bilge wate r) and concluded that 83% of the cases involved discharges of oil or oil-based products, the volumes of which ranged from a few drops to hundreds of gallons. The balance of the cases involved discharges of plastic or garbage. GAO judged that 72% of the illegal discharges were accidental, 15% were inten tional, and 13% could not be determined. The 87 cruise ship cases represented 4% of the 2,400 illegal discharge cases by foreign-flag ships (including tankers, car go ships and other commercial vessels, as well as cruise ships) conf irmed during the six years studied by GAO. Although cruise ships operating in U.S. waters have b een involved in a relatively small number of pollution cases, GAO said, several have b een widely publicized and have led to criminal prosecutions and multimillion-dollar fines.

In 2000, a coalition of 53 environmen tal advocacy groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to address pollution by cruise ships. 7 The petition called for an investigation of wastewater, oil, and solid waste discharges from cruise sh ips. In response, EPA agreed to studyCRS-3

8 EPA White Paper.

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report,” EPA842-R-07-005, December 2007. Hereafter, EPA Draft Discharge Assessment Report. See: U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency, “Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, Notice of availability and request for public comments,” Federal Register , vol. 72, no. 244, Dec. 20, 2007, p. 72353. cruise ship discharges and wa ste management approaches. As part of that effort, in 2000 EPA issued a background document with preliminary information and
recommendations for further assessmen t through data collection and public information hearings. 8 Subsequently, in December 2007, the agency released a draft cruise ship discharge assessm ent report as part of its response to the petition. This report summarized findings of recent data collection activities (especially from cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters). EPA expects to issue a completed report by the end of 2008, and at that time will identify a range of options and alternatives to address cruise ship waste streams. 9

This report presents information on issu es related to cruise ship pollution. It begins by describing the se veral types of waste streams and contaminants that cruise ships may generate and release. It iden tifies the complex body of international and domestic laws that address pollution from cruise ships, as there is no single law in this area. Some wastes are covered by in ternational standards, some are subject to U.S. law, and for some there are gaps in law, regulation, or possibly both. The report then describes federal and state legislative activity concerning cruise ships in Alaskan
waters and recent activities ina few other states. Cruise ship companies have taken a number of steps to prevent illegal wast e discharges and have adopted waste management plans and practices to imp rove their envir onmental operations.
Environmental critics acknowledge these initiatives, even as they have petitioned the federal government to strengthen existing regulation of cruise ship wastes. Environmental groups endorsed companion bills in the 109 thCongress (the Clean Cruise Ship Act, S. 793/H.R. 1636) that w ould have required stricter standards to control wastewater discharges from cruise ships. Congress did not act on either bill.



## Cruise Ship Waste Streams

Cruise ships generate a number of waste streams that can result in discharges to the marine environment, including sewage, graywater, hazardous wastes, oily bilge water, ballast water, and solid waste. They also emit air pollutants to the air and water. These wastes, if not properly treat ed and disposed of, can be a significant source of pathogens, nutrients, and toxic substances with the potential to threaten human health and damage aquatic life. It is important, however, to keep these discharges in some perspective, because cruise ships represent a small — although highly visible — portion of the entire intern ational shipping industry, and the waste
streams described here are not unique to cruise ships. However, particular types of wastes, such as sewage, graywater, and so lid waste, may be of greater concern for cruise ships relative to other seagoing vessels, because of the large numbers of passengers and crew that cruise ships carry and the large volumes of wastes that they produce. Further, because cruise ships te nd to concentrate their activities in specificCRS-4

10 The Ocean Conservancy, “Cruise Control, A Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment,” May 2002, p. 13. Hereafter, “Cruise Control.”

11 EPA Draft Discharge Assessment Report, pp. 3-5 - 3-6.

12 Cruise Control, p. 15.

13 The Center for Environmental Leadership inBusiness, “A Shifting Tide, Environmental Challenges and Cruise Industry Responses ,” p. 14. Hereafter, “Shifting Tide.” coastal areas and visit the same ports repeat edly (especially Florida, California, New York, Galveston, Seattle, and the waters of Alaska), their cumulative impact on a local scale could be significant, as can impacts of individual large-volume releases (either accidental or intentional).

Blackwateris sewage, wastewater from toilets and medical facilities, which can contain harmful bacteria, pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal parasites, and harmful nutrients. Discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage can cause
bacterial and viral contamin ation of fisheries and she llfish beds, producing risks to public health. Nutrients in sewage, su ch as nitrogen and phosphorous, promote excessive algal growth, which consumes oxygen in the water and can lead to fish
kills and destruction of othe r aquatic life. A large crui se ship (3,000 passengers and crew) generates an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 gallons per day of blackwater waste. 10

Graywateris wastewater from the sinks, showers, galleys, laundry, and cleaning activities aboard a ship. It can contain a variety of pollutant substances, including fecal coliform bacteria, detergents, oil and grease, metals, organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, nutrients, food wa ste, and medical and dental waste. Sampling done by EPA and the state of Al aska found that untreated graywater from cruise ships can contain pollutants at variab le strengths and that it can contain levels
of fecal coliform bacteria several times greater than is typically found in untreated
domestic wastewater. 11 Graywater has potential to cause adverse environmental effects because of concentrations of nutrients and other oxygen-demanding materials, in particular. Graywater is typically the largest source of liquid waste generated by cruise ships (90%-95% of the total). Estimates of graywater range from 30 to 85 gallons per day per person, or 90,000 to 255,000 gallons per day for a 3,000-person cruise ship. 12

Solid waste generated on a ship includes gla ss, paper, cardboard, aluminum and steel cans, and plastics. It can be either non-hazardous or hazar dous in nature. Solid waste that enters the ocean may become marine debris, and it can then pose a threat to marine organisms, humans, coastal communities, and industries that utilize marine waters. Cruise ships typically manage solid waste by a combination of source reduction, waste minimization, a nd recycling. However, as much as 75% of solid waste is incinerated on board, and the ash ty pically is discharged at sea, although some is landed ashore for disposal or recy cling. Marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, and birds can be injured or killed from entanglement with plastics and other solid waste that may be released or disposed off of cruise ships. On average, each cruise ship passenger generates atleast two pounds of non-haza rdous solid waste per day and disposes of two bottles and two cans. 13 With large cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers, the amount of waste ge nerated in a day can be massive. For aCRS-5

14 Bluewater Network, “Cruising for Trouble: St emming the Tide of Cruise Ship Pollution,” March 2000, p. 5. Hereafter, “Cruising for Trouble.” A report prepared for an industry group estimated that a 3,000-person cruise ship generates 1.1 million gallons of graywater during a seven-day cruise. Don K. Kim, “C ruise Ship Waste Dispersion Analysis Report on the Analysis of Graywater Discharge,” pres ented to the International Council of Cruise Lines, September 14, 2000.

15 National Research Council, Committee on Shipboard Wastes, Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea (National Academy Press, 1995), Table 2-3, pp. 38-39.

16 Ibid., p. 126.

17 “Shifting Tide,” p. 16. large cruise ship, about 8 tons of so lid waste are generated during a one-week
cruise. 14 It has been estimated that 24% of the solid waste generated by vessels worldwide (by weight) comes from cruise ships. 15 Most cruise ship garbage is treated on board (incinerated, pulped, or ground up) for discharge overboard. When garbage must be off-loaded (for exampl e, because glass and alumi num cannot be incinerated), cruise ships can put a strain on port recepti on facilities, which are rarely adequate to the task of serving a large passenger vessel (especially at non-North American ports). 16

Cruise ships produce hazardous wastes from a number of on-board activities and processes, including photo processing , dry-cleaning, and equipment cleaning. Types of waste include discarded and expi red chemicals, medical waste, batteries, fluorescent lights, and spent paints and th inners, among others . These materials contain a wide range of substances such as hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, paint waste, solvents, fl uorescent and mercury vapor light bulbs, various types of batteries, and unused or outdated pharmaceuticals. Although the quantities of hazar dous waste generated on cruise ship s are small, their toxicity to sensitive marine organisms can be signifi cant. Without careful management, these wastes can find their way into graywater, bilge water, or the solid waste stream.

On a ship, oil often leaks from engine and machinery spaces or from engine maintenance activities and mixes with water in the bilge, the lowest part of the hull of the ship. Oil, gasoline, and byproducts fro m the biological breakdown of petroleum products can harm fish and wildlife and pose threats to human health if ingested. Oil in even minute concentrations can kill fish or have various sub-lethal
chronic effects. Bilge wateralso may contain solid wast es and pollutants containing high amounts of oxygen-demanding materi al, oil and other chemicals. A typical large cruise ship will generate an average of 8 metric tons of oily bilge water for each 24 hours of operation. 17 To maintain ship stab ility and eliminate potentially hazardous conditions from oil vapors in these areas, the bilge spaces need to be flushed and periodically pumped dry. However, before a bilge can be cleared out and the water discharged, the oil that has been accumulated needs to be extracted from the bilge water, after which the extracted oil can be reused, in cinerated, and/or offloaded in port. If a separator, which is normally used to extract the oil, is faulty or is deliberately bypassed, untreated oily bilg e water could be disc harged directly intoCRS-6

18 Statement of Catherine Hazelwood, Th e Ocean Conservancy, “Ballast Water Management: New International Standards a nd NISA Reauthorizati on,” Hearing, House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommi ttee on Water Resources and Environment,
108 thCong., 2 ndsess., March 25, 2004.

19 David Pimentel, Lori Lac h, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison, “Environmental and
Economic Costs Associated withNon-indigenous Species in th e United States,” presented at AAAS Conference, Anaheim, CA, January 24, 1999.

20 68 Federal Register 9751, 9753, February 28, 2003. the ocean, where it can damage marine life. A number of cruise lines have been charged with environmental violations related to this issue in recent years.

Cruise ships, large tankers, and bulk cargo carriers use a tremendous amount of
ballast waterto stabilize the vessel during transport. Ballast water is often taken on in the coastal waters in one region after ships discharge wastewater or unload cargo, and discharged at the next port of call, wherever more cargo is loaded, which reduces the need for compensating ballast. Thus, it is essential to the proper functioning of ships (especially cargo ships), because the water that is taken in compensates for changes in the ship’s weight as cargo is loaded or unloaded, and as fuel and supplies are consumed. However, ba llast water discharge typica lly contains a variety of biological materials, including plants, animals, viruses, and bacteria. These materials often include non-native, nuisance, exotic species that can cause extensive ecological and economic damage to aquatic ecosystems. Ballast water discharges are believed to be the leading source of invasive species in U.S. marine waters, thus posing public health and environmental risks, as well as significant economic cost to industries such as water and power utilities, commercial and recreational fisheries, agriculture,
and tourism. 18 Studies suggest that the economic cost just from introduction of pest mollusks (zebra mussels, the Asian clam, and others) to U.S. aquatic ecosystems is more than $6 billion per year. 19 These problems are not limited to cruise ships, but there is little cruise-industry specific data on the issue, and further study is needed to determine cruise ships’ role in the ove rall problem of intr oduction of non-native species by vessels.

Air pollution from cruise ships is generated by diesel engines that burn high sulfur content fuel, producing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, in addition to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxid e, and hydrocarbons. Diesel exhaust has been classified by EPA as a likely human carcinogen. EPA recognizes that these emissions from marine diesel engines contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment (i.e., failure to meet air qua lity standards), as we ll as adverse health effects associated with ambient concentrations of particulate matter and visibility, haze, acid deposition, and eutrophication and nitrophication of water. 20 EPA estimates that large marine diesel engine s accounted for about 1.6% of mobile source nitrogen oxide emissions and 2.8% of mob ile source particulate emissions in the
United States in 2000. Contributions of mari ne diesel engines can be higher on a port-specific basis.

One source of environmental pressure s on maritime vessels recently has come from states and localities, as they assess the contribution of commercial marine vessels to regional air quality problems when ships are docked in port. For instance,CRS-7

21 Ibid., pp. 9751, 9756.

22 The majority of cruise ships are foreign-fl agged, primarily in Liberia and Panama. Both of these countries have ratified all six of the MARPOL annexes. For information, see [http://www.imo.org/]. large marine diesel engines are believed to contribute 7% of mobile source nitrogen oxide emissions in Baton Rouge/New Orlean s. Ships can also have a significant impact in areas without large commercial ports: they contribute about 37% of total area nitrogen oxide emissions in the Santa Barbara area, and that percentage is expected to increase to 61% by the year 2015. 21 Again, there is little cruise-industry specific data on this issue. They comprise only a small fraction of the world shipping fleet, but cruise ship emissions may exert significant impacts on a local scale in specific coastal areas that ar e visited repeatedly. Shipboard incinerators also burn large volumes of garbage, plastics, and other waste, producing ash that must be disposed of. Incinerators may release toxic emissions as well.



## Applicable Laws and Regulations

The several waste streams ge nerated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols a nd U.S. domestic laws, regulations and standards, which are described in this section, but there is no single law or regulation. Moreover, there are overlaps in some areas of coverage, gaps in other areas, and differences in geographic jurisdiction, based on applicable terms and definitions.



### International Legal Regime

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a body of the United Nations, sets international maritime vessel safety and marine pollution standards. It consists of representatives from 152 major maritime nations, including the United States. The IMO implements the 1973 International Conve ntion for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protoc ol of 1978, known as MARPOL 73/78. Cruise ships flagged under countries that are si gnatories to MARPOL are subject to its requirements, regardless of wh ere they sail, and member nations are responsible for vessels registered under th eir respective nationalities. 22 Six Annexes of the
Convention cover the various sources of pollution from ships and provide an overarching framework for in ternational objectives, but they are not sufficient alone to protect the marine environment from wa ste discharges, without ratification and implementation by sovereign states.

! Annex I deals with regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil.

! Annex II details the discharge crite ria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.

! Annex III contains general requirements for issuing standards on packing, marking, labeling, and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.

! Annex IV contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by

sewage.CRS-8

23 The 109 thCongress also considered but did notenact legislation to implement the standards in Annex VI, as part of H.R. 5681, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006. The House passed H.R. 5681 on September 28, 2006. Title V of the bill incorporated the text of H.R. 5811, the MARPOL A nnex VI Implementation Act of 2 006, which was separately approved by the House Trans portation and Infrastructure Committee (H.Rept. 109-667). The Senate did not act on H.R. 5681 before the 109 thCongress adjourned in
December 2006. ! Annex V deals with different types of garbage, including plastics, and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of.

! Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and other
emissions from marine vessel operations and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

In order for IMO standards to be binding, they must first be ratified by a total
number of member countries whose combined gross tonnage represents at least 50% of the world’s gross tonnage, a process that can be lengthy. All si x have been ratified by the requisite number of nations; the mo st recent is Annex VI, which took effect in May 2005. The United States has ratified all except Annex IV. The country where a ship is registered (flag st ate) is responsible for certifying the ship’s compliance with MARPOL’s pollution prevention standards. IMO also has established a large number of other conventions, addressing issues such as ballast wate r management, and the International Safety Management Code, with guidelines for passenger safety and pollution prevention.

Each signatory nation is responsible for enacting domestic laws to implement the convention and effectively pledges to comply with the convention, annexes, and related laws of other nations. In the United States, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§1905-1915) impleme nts the provisions of MARPOL and the annexes to which the United States is a party. The most recent U.S. action concerning MARPOL occurred in April 2006, when the Senate approved Annex VI, which regulates air pollution (Treaty Do c. 108-7, Exec. Rept. 109-13). Following that approval, in March 2007, the House approved legislation to implement the standards in Annex VI (H.R. 802), through regulations to be promulgated by EPA in
consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard. 23

APPS applies to all U.S.-flagged ships anywhere in the world and to all foreignflagged vessels operating in na vigable waters of the Unite d States or while at port under U.S. jurisdiction. The Coast Guard ha s primary responsibility to prescribe and enforce regulations necessary to implement APPS in these waters. The regulatory mechanism established in APPS to implement MARPOL is separate and distinct
from the Clean Water Act and othe r federal environmental laws.

One of the difficulties in implementing MARPOL arises from the very
international nature of ma ritime shipping. The country that the ship visits can conduct its own examination to verify a ship’s compliance with international standards and can detain the ship if it fi nds significant noncompliance. Under the provisions of the Convention, the United Stat es can take direct enforcement action under U.S. laws against foreign-flagged ships when pollution discharge incidentsCRS-9

24 2000 GAO Report, pp. 19-21. occur within U.S. jurisdiction. When incidents occur outside U.S. jurisdiction or jurisdiction cannot be determined, the United States re fers cases to flag states, in accordance with MARPOL. The 2000 GAO report documented that these procedures require substantial coordination between the Coast Guard, the State Department, and other flag st ates and that, even when referrals have been made, the response rate from flag states has been poor. 24



### Domestic Laws and Regulations

In the United States, several federal agen cies have some jurisdiction over cruise ships in U.S. waters, but no one agency is responsible for or coordinates all of the relevant government functions. The U. S. Coast Guard and EPA have principal regulatory and standard-se tting responsibilities, and th e Department of Justice prosecutes violations of fede ral laws. In addition, the De partment of State represents the United States at meetings of the IMO and in international treaty negotiations and is responsible for pursuing foreign-flag violations. Other federal agencies have
limited roles and res ponsibilities. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce) works with the Coast Guard and EPA to report on the effect s of marine debris. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is res ponsible for ensuring quarantine inspection and disposal of food-contaminated garbag e (these APHIS responsibilities are part of the Department of Homeland Security). In some cases, states and localities have responsibilities as well. This section describes U.S. laws and regulations that apply to cruise ship discharges.

**Sewage.** The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act (CWA), is the principal U.S. law con cerned with limiting polluting activity in the nation’s streams, lakes, estu aries, and coastal waters. The act’s primary mechanism for controlling pollutant discharges is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, authorized in Section 402. In accordance with the NPDES program, pollutant discharges fro m point sources — a term that includes vessels — are prohibited unless a permit has been obtained. While sewage is defined as a pollutant under the act, sewage from cruise ships and other vessels is exempt from this statutory definition and is theref ore exempt from the re quirement to obtain an NPDES permit. Further, EPA regulations implementing the NPDES permit program provide that “discharges incident al to the normal operation of vessels” are excluded from regulation and thus fro m permit requirements (40 CFR §122.3(a)). However, a 2006 federal court ruling could result in changes to these regulations that would remove the current permitting exemption (see discussion of “Ballast Water” on page 14).

**Marine Sanitation Devices.** Section 312 of the Clean Water Act seeks to address this gap by prohibiting the dumping of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States (defined in the act as within 3 miles of shore). Cruise sh ips are subject to this prohibition. It is implemented jointly by EPA and the Co ast Guard. Under Section 312, commercial and recreational vessels with installed toilets are required to have marine sanitationCRS-10

25 2000 GAO Report, pp. 34-35, 13.

26 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 296) transferred the entirety of the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. For (continued...) devices (MSDs), which are designed to pr event the discharge of untreated sewage. EPA is responsible for developing perfo rmance standards for MSDs, and the Coast Guard is responsible for MSD design a nd operation regulations and for certifying MSD compliance with the EPA rules. MSDs are designed either to hold sewage for shore-based disposal or to treat sewage prior to discharge. Beyond 3 miles, raw sewage can be discharged.

The Coast Guard regulations cover three types of MSDs (33 CFR Part 159). Large vessels, including cruise ships, use either Type II or Type III MSDs. In Type II MSDs, the waste is either chemically or biologically treated prior to discharge and
must meet limits of no more than 200 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters and no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. Type III MSDs store wastes and do not treat them; the waste is pumped out later and treated in an onshore system or discharged outside U.S. waters. Type I MSDs use chemicals to disinfect the raw sewage prior to discharge and must meet a performance standard for fecal coliform bacteria of not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. Type I MSDs are generally only found on r ecreational vessels or others under 65 feet in length. The regulations, which have not been revised since 1976, do not require ship operators to sample, monitor, or report on their effluent discharges.

Critics point out a number of deficiencies with this regulatory structure as it affects cruise ships and other large vessels. First, th e MSD regulations only cover discharges of bacterial contaminants a nd suspended solids, while the NPDES permit program for other point sources typically regulates many more pollutants such as chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, and grease that may be released by cruise ships as well as land-based sources. Sec ond, sources subject to NPDES permits must comply with sampling, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which
do not exist in the MSD rules.

In addition, the Coast Guard, responsible for inspecting cruise ships and other vessels for compliance with the MSD rule s, has been heavily criticized for poor enforcement of Section 312 requirements. Inits 2000 report, the GAO said that Coast Guard inspectors “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 conta minants.” GAO reported that a number of factors limit the ability of Coast Guard inspectors to detect violations of environmental law and rules, including the inspectors’ focus on safety, the large size of a cruise ship, limited time and staff for inspections, and the lack of an element of surprise concerning inspections. 25 The Coast Guard carries out a wide range of responsibilities that encompass both homela nd security (ports, waterways, and coastal security, defense readiness, drug and migrant interdic tion) and non-homeland security (search and rescue , marine environmental prot ection, fisheries enforcement, aids to navigation). Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Coast Guard has focused more of its resources on homeland security activities. 26 OneCRS-11

26 (...continued) discussion, see archived CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress.

27 EPA Draft Discharge Assessment Report, p. 2-13. likely result is that less of the Coast Guard’s time and attention are available for vessel inspections for MSD or other environmental compliance.

Annex IV of MARPOL was drafted to re gulate sewage discharges from vessels. It has entered into force internationally and would apply to cruise ships that are flagged in ratifying countries, but becausethe United States ha s not ratified Annex IV, it is not mandatory that ships follow it when in U.S. waters. However, its requirements are minimal, even compared with U.S. rules for MSDs. Annex IV requires that vessels be equi pped with a certified sewage treatment system or holding tank, but it prescribes no specific perform ance standards. Within three miles of shore, Annex IV requires that sewage disc harges be treated by a certified MSD prior to discharge. Between three and 12 miles from shore, sewage discharges must be treated by no less than maceration or ch lorination; sewage discharges beyond 12 miles from shore are unrestricted. Vessels are permitted to meet alternative, less stringent requirements when they are in the jurisdiction of countries where less stringent requirements apply. In U.S. waters, cruise ships a nd other vessels must comply with the regulations implemen ting Section 312 of the Clean Water Act.

On some cruise ships, especially many of those that travel in Alaskan waters, sewage is treated using Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) systems that generally provide improved sc reening, treatment, disinf ection, and sludge processing as compared with traditional Type II MSDs. AWTs are believed to be very effective in removing pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate metals from sewage, but only moderately effective in removing dissolved metals and nutrien ts (ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorous). 27

**No Discharge Zones.** Section 312 has another m eans of addressing sewage discharges, through establishment of no-di scharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage. A state may completely prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage
from all vessels with installed toilets into some or all waters over which it has jurisdiction (up to 3 miles from land). To create a no-discharge zone to protect waters from sewage discharges by cruise ships and other vessels, the state must apply to EPA under one of three categories.

! NDZ based on the need for greater environmental protection, and the state demonstrates that adequa te pumpout facilities for safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available. As of 2008, this category of designation has been used for 61 areas representing part or all of the waters of 26 states, including a number of inland states.

! NDZ for special waters found to ha ve a particular environmental importance (e.g., to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfish beds or coral reefs); it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been usedCRS-12

28 The 1988 Shore Protection Act (33 U.S.C. 2601-2603) prohibits vessels from transporting municipal or commercial waste in U.S. coas tal waters without a permit issued by the Department of Transportation. It was inte nded to minimize trash, medical debris, and potentially harmful materials from being deposite d in U.S. coastal waters. However, its provisions exclude waste generated by a ve ssel during normal operations and thus do not apply to cruise ships. twice (state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Boundary Wate rs Canoe area of Minnesota).

! NDZ to prohibit the discharge of sewage into waters that are drinking water intake z ones; it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used to protect part of the Hudson River in New York.

**Graywater.** Under current federal law, graywater is not defined as a pollutant, nor is it generally consideredto be sewage. By regu lation, EPA exempts discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including graywater, from NPDES permit requirements ( 40 CFR § 122.3); however, a federal court has ordered EPA to set aside this rule (see discussion of Balla st Water, page 16). There are no separate
federal effluent standards for graywater discharges. The Clean Water Act only includes graywater in its definition of se wage for the express purpose of regulating
commercial vessels in the Great Lakes, under the Section 312 MSD requirements. Thus, currently graywater can be discharg ed by cruise ships anywhere — except in the Great Lakes, where the Section 312 MSD rules apply, but those rules prescribe limits only for bacterial contaminant content and total suspended solids in graywater. Pursuant to a state law in Alaska, graywate r must be treated prior to discharge into that state’s waters (see di scussion below, page 20).

**Solid Waste.** Cruise ship discharges of solidwaste are governed by two laws.
Title I of the Marine Prot ection, Research and Sanctu aries Act (MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1402-1421) applies to cruise sh ips and other vessels and makes it illegal to transport garbage from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters without a per mit or to dump any material transported from a location outside the
United States into U.S. territorial seas or the contiguous zone (within 12 nautical miles from shore) or ocean waters. EPA is responsible for issuing permits that regulate the disposal of materials at sea (except for dredged material disposal, for which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible). Bey ond waters that are under U.S. jurisdiction, no MPRSA permit is re quired for a cruise ship to discharge solid waste. The routine discharge of effl uent incidental to the propulsion of vessels is explicitly exempted from the definition of dumping in the MPRSA. 28

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. 1901-1915) and its regulations, which implement U.S.-ratifie d provisions of MARPOL, also apply to cruise ships. APPS prohibits the discharge of all garbage within 3 nautical miles of shore, certain types of garbage within 12 nautical miles offshore, and plastic anywhere. As described above , it applies to a ll vessels, whether seagoing or not, regardless of flag, operating in U.S. navigable waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It is administered by the Coast Guard which carries out inspection programs to insure the adequacy of port facilities to receive o ffloaded solid waste.CRS-13

29 EPA Draft Discharge Assessment Report, pp. 6-4, 6-7.

30 EPA White Paper, p. 10.

31 “Cruising for Trouble,” p. 5. **Hazardous Waste.** The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6901-6991k ) is the primary federal law that governs hazardous waste management through a “cradle-to-grave” program that controls hazardous waste from the point of generation until ultimate disposal. The act imposes management requirements on generators, transporters, and persons who treat or dispose of hazardous waste. Under this act, a waste is hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic, or appears on a list of about 100 industrial pr ocess waste streams and more than 500 discarded commercia l products a nd chemicals. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are re quired to have permits and comply with operating standards and other EPA regulations.

The owner or operator of a cruise ship may be a generator and/or a transporter of hazardous waste, and thus subject to RCRA rules. Issues that the cruise ship industry may face relating to RCRA include ensuring that hazardous waste is identified at the point at which it is considered generated; ensuring that parties are properly identified as generato rs, storers, treaters, or di sposers; and determining the applicability of RCRA requirements to each. Hazardous waste generated onboard cruise ships are stored onboard until the wa stes can be offloaded for recycling or disposal in accordance with RCRA. 29

A range of activities on board cruise ships generate ha zardous wastes and toxic substances that would ordinarily be presumed to be subject to RCRA. Cruise ships are potentially subject to RCRA requirements to the extent that chemicals used for operations such as ship maintenance and passenger services result in the generation of hazardous wastes. However, it is not en tirely clear what regulations apply to the management and disposal of these wastes. 30 RCRA rules that cover small-quantity generators (those that generate mo re than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month) are less stringent than those for largequantity generators (generating more than 1,000 kilograms per month), and it is unclear whether cruise ships are classified as large or small generators of hazardous waste. Moreover, some cruise companies argue that they generate less than 100 kilograms per month and therefore should be classified in a third category, as “conditionally exempt small-quantity generators,” a categorization that allows for less rigorous requirements for notifi cation, recordkeeping, and the like. 31

A release of hazardous substances by a cruise ship or other vessel could also theoretically trigger the Comprehensiv e Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Supe rfund, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), but it does not appear to have been used in response to cruise ship releases. CERCLA requires that any person in charge of a vessel sha ll immediately notify the National Response Center of any release of a hazardous substa nce (other than discharges in compliance with a federal permit under th e Clean Water Act or othe r environmental law) into
waters of the United States or the con tiguous zone. Notification is required for releases in amounts determined by EPA thatmay present substan tial danger to theCRS-14

public health, welfare, or the environm ent. EPA has identified 500 wastes as hazardous substances under these provisions and issued rules on quantities that are reportable, covering releas es as small as 1 pound of so me substances (40 CFR Part 302). CERCLA authorizes the President (ac ting through the Coast Guard in coastal waters) to remove and pr ovide for remedial action relating to the release.

In addition to RCRA, hazardous waste discharges from cruise ships are subject to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, wh ich prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances in harmful quantities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.

**Bilge Water.** Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701-2720), applies to cruise ships and prohibits discharge of oil or hazardous substan ces in harmful quantities into or upon U.S. navigable waters, or into or upon the wate rs of the contiguous zone, or which may
affect natural resources in the U.S. EEZ (extending 200 miles offshore). Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR §151.10) pr ohibit discharge of oil within 12 miles from shore, unless passed through a 15-ppm oil water se parator, and unless the discharge does not cause a visible sheen. Beyond 12 miles, oil or oily mixtures can be discharged while a vessel is proceeding en route and if the oil content without dilution is less than 100 ppm. Vessels are required to maintain an Oil Record Book to record disposal of oily residues and discharges overboard or disposal of bilge water.

In addition to Section 311 requirements, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) implements MARPOL Annex I con cerning oil pollution. APPS applies to all U.S. flagged ships anywhere in the world and to all foreign flagged vessels operating in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port under U.S. jurisdiction. To implementAPPS, the Coast Guard has promulgated regulations prohibiting the discharge of oil or oily mix tures into the sea within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land, except under limited cond itions. However, because most cruise lines are foreign registered and because APPS only applies to foreign ships within U.S. navigable waters, the APPS regulations have limited applicability to cruise ship operations. In addition, most cruise lin es have adopted policies that restrict discharges of machinery space wa ste within three miles from shore.

**Ballast Water.** Clean Water Act regulations currently exempt ballast water discharges incidental to th e normal operation of cruise ships and other vessels from NPDES permit requirements (see above discussions concerning sewage and graywater). Because of the growing problemof introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters via ballast water, in January 1999, a number of conservation organizations, fishing groups, native Ameri can tribes, and water agencies petitioned EPA to repeal its 1973 regulation exemptin g ballast water discharge, arguing that ballast water should be regulated as the “discharge of a pollutant” under the Clean Water Act’s Section 402 permit program. EPA rejected the petition in September 2003, saying that the “normal operation” exclusion is long-standing agency policy, to which Congress has acquiesced twice (in 1979 and 1996) when it considered the issue of aquatic nuisance species in ba llast water and did not alter EPA’s CWACRS-15

32 68 Federal Register 53165, September 9, 2003.

33 In 1990, Congress enacted the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq) to focus fede ral efforts on non-indigenous, invasive, aquatic nuisance species, specifically when such species occur in ballast water discharges. That law, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, delegated authority to the Coast Guard to establish a phased-in regulatory program for ballast water.

34 For information, see CRS Report RL 32344, Ballast Water Management to Combat Invasive Species , by Eugene H. Buck. interpretation. 32 Further, EPA said that other ongoing federal activities related to control of invasive species in ballast water are likely to be more effective than changing the NPDES rules. 33 Until recently, these efforts to limit ballast water discharges by cruise ships and other vessels we re primarily voluntary, except in the Great Lakes. Since 2004, all vessels equippe d with ballast water tanks must have a
ballast water ma nagement plan. 34

After the denial of their administrativ e petition, the environmental groups filed a lawsuit seeking to force EPA to rescind the regulation that exempts ballast water discharges from CWA permitting. In Marc h 2005, a federal district court ruled in favor of the groups, and in September 2006, the court remanded the matter to EPA with an order that the challenged regu lation be set aside by September 30, 2008 (Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA , No. C 03-05760 SI (N.D.Cal, September 18, 2006)). The district court rejected EPA’s cont ention that Congress had previously acquiesced in exempting the “normal operation” of vessels from CWA permitting and disagreed with EPA’s argument that the court’s two-year deadline creates practical difficulties for the agency and the affected industry. Significantly, while the focus of the envi ronmental groups’ cha llenge was principally to EPA’s permitting exemption for ballast water discharges, the court’s ruling — and
its mandate to EPA to rescind the ex emption in 40 CFR §122.3(a) — applies fully to other types of vessel disc harges that are covered by the regulatory exemption, including graywater and bilge water.

The government has appealed the distri ct court’s ruling, and the parties are waiting for a ruling from the appeals court. However, in June 2007, EPA also initiated steps seeking public comment on re gulating ballast wate r discharges from ships, an information-gathering prelude to a potential rulemaking in response to the
district court’s order.

The 110 thCongress has been considering ballast water discharge issues, specifically legislation to provide a uniformnational approach fo r addressing aquatic nuisance species from ballast water under a program administered by the Coast Guard (S. 1578, ordered reported by the Senate Commerce Co mmittee on September 27, 2007, and H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338)). Some groups oppose S. 1578 and H.R. 2830, because the legislation would preemptstates from enacting ballast water management programs more stringent than Coast Guard requirements, while the
CWA does allow states to a dopt requirements more stringe nt than in federal rules. Also, while the CWA permits citizen suits to enforce the law, the pending legislation includes no citizen suit provisions.CRS-16

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “F inal Rule, Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per Cylinder,” 68 Federal Register 9746-9789, February 28, 2003.

36 For information, see [http://www.earthjus tice.org/news/display.html?ID=53] and [http:// www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=158].

37 Annex VI, which came into force internationally in May 2005, also regulates ozonedepleting emissions, sulfur oxi des, and shipboard incinerati on, but there are no restrictions on particulate matter, hydr ocarbons, or carbon monoxide.

38 Bluewater Network v. EPA , D.C.Cir., No. 03-1120, June 22, 2004. **Air Pollution.** The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is the principal federal law that addresses air quality concerns. It requires EPA to set health-based standards for ambient air quality, sets standards for the achievement of those standards, and sets nationa l emission standards for large and ubiquitous sources of air pollution, including mobile sources. Cruise ships emissions were not regulated until February 2003. At that time, EPA pr omulgated emission standards for new marine diesel engines on large vessels (called Category 3 marine engines) such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships flagged or registered in the
United States. 35 The 2003 rule resulted from settleme nt of litigation brought by the environmental group Bluewater Network after it had petitioned EPA to issue stringent emission standards for large vessels and cruise ships. 36 Standards in the rule are equivalent to internationally negotiated standards set in Annex VI of the MARPOL protocol for nitrogen oxides, wh ich engine manufacturers currently meet, according to EPA. 37 Emissions from these large, primarily ocean-going vessels (including container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, as well as cruise ships) had not previously been subject to EPA regulation. The rule is one of several EPA regulations establishing e missions standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, under Section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act. Sma ller marine diesel engines are regulated
under rules issued in 1996 and 1999.

In the 2003 rule, EPA announced that over the next two years it would continue to review issues and technology relate d to emissions from large marine vessel engines in order to promulgate additional, more stringen t emission standards for very large marine engines and vessels by April 2007. Addressing long-term standards in a future rulemaking, EPA said, could facilitate international efforts through the IMO (since the majority of ships used in international commerce are flagged in other nations), while also permitting the United Stat es to proceed, if in ternational standards are not adopted in a timely manner. Environmental groups criticized EPA for excluding foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports from the marine diesel engine rules and challenged the 2003 rules in fede ral court. The rules were upheld in a ruling issued June 22, 2004. 38 EPA said that it will consider including foreign vessels in the future rulemaking to consider more stringent standards.

In April 2007, EPA announced an extens ion of the deadline that had been
announced in 2 003 for new Catego ry 3 marine diesel engine standards — until December 17, 2009. EPA explained that more time was needed to assess advanced emission control technologies and to coordinate with the IMO. Most recently, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment onCRS-17

39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; Proposed Rule,” Federal Register , vol. 72, no. 235, Dec. 7, 2007, pp. 69521-69552. the scope of the rules that the agency s hould propose for a second tier of Category 3 engines. 39 Some groups are displeased with EPA’ s delay, and in re sponse, legislation
has been introduced in the 110 thCongress that would set specific standards and deadlines to limit the sulfur content of fuel used by U.S. and foreign-flagged marine vessels when they enter or leave U.S. ports, and to require advanced pollution
controls for other air emissions from such marine vessels (S. 1499/H.R. 2548).

**Considerations of Ge ographic Jurisdiction.**  The various laws and regulations described here apply to di fferent geographic areas, depending on the terminology used. For example, the Clean Water Act treats navigable waters, the contiguous zone, and the ocean as distinct entities. The term “navigable waters” is defined to mean the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). In turn, the territorial s eas are defined in thatact as extending a
distance of 3 miles seaward from the ba seline (33 U.S.C. §1362(8)); the baseline generally means the land or shore. In 1988, President Reagan signed a proclamation (Proc. No. 5928, December 27, 1988, 54 Federal Register 777) providing that the
territorial sea of the United States extends to 12 nautical miles from the U.S. baseline. However, that proclamation ha d no effect on the geographic reach of the
Clean Water Act.

The contiguous zone is defined in the CWA to mean the entire zone established by the United States under Article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (33 U.S.C. §1362(9)). Th at convention define s “contiguous zone” as extending from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured to not beyond 12 miles. In 1999, President Clint on signed a proclamation (Proc. No. 7219 of August 2, 1999, 64 Federal Register 48701) giving U.S. authorities the right to enforce customs, immigration, or sanitary la ws at sea within 24 nautical miles from the baseline, doubling the trad itional 12-mile width of the contiguous zone. As with the 1988 presidential proclamation, this proclamation did not amend any statutory definitions (as a general matter, a presidential proclamation cannot amend a statute). Thus, for purposes of the Clean Water Act, the territorial sea remains 3 miles wide, and the contiguous zone extends from 3 to 12 miles. Under CERCLA, “navigable waters” means waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (42 U.S.C. §9601(15)), and that law incorporates the Clean Water Act’s definiti ons of “territorial seas” and “contiguous zone” (42 U.S.C. §9601(30)).

The CWA defines the “ocean” as any portion of the high seas beyond the contiguous zone (33 U.S.C. §1362(10)). In contrast, the MPRSA defines “ocean waters” as the open seas lying seaward be yond the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, as provided for in the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (33 U.S.C. §1402(b)).

Limits of jurisdiction are important because they define the areas where specific laws and rules apply. For example, th e Clean Water Act MS D standards apply to sewage discharges from vessels into or upon the navigable waters, and Section 402CRS-18

40 For an explanation of these terms, se e [http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ Statute%20mile].

41 In 2003, the number of cruise ship passengers in Southeast Alaska was about 800,000, with tens of thousands of crew, in additi on. By comparison, the state’s population is approximately 650,000. Roughly 95% of the currentcruise ship traffic is concentrated in Southeast Alaska, a region with a population of approximately 73,000 people. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program, “Assessment of Cruise Ship and Ferry Wastewater Impacts in Alaska,” February 9, 2004, p. 8. Hereafter, “Assessment of Impacts in Alaska.” NPDES permits are required for point source discharges (excluding vessels) into the navigable waters. Section 311 of the CW A, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, addresses discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters
of the United States or the waters of th e contiguous zone. Provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§1901-1915) concerning discharges of oil and noxious substances apply to na vigable waters. Other provisions of that same act concerning garbage and plastics apply to navigable waters or the EEZ, but the term “navigable waters” is not de fined in APPS. The MPRSA regulates ocean dumping within the area extending 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline and regulates transport of material by U.S.-flagged vessels for dumping into ocean

waters.

Further complicating jurisdictional considerations is the fact that the Clean
Water Act refers to these distances from shore in terms of miles, without other qualification, which is generally interpreted to mean an international mile or statute mile. APPS, the MPRSA, and the two presidential proclamations refer to distances
in terms of nautical miles from the baseline. These two measures are not identical: a nautical mile is a unit of distance used primarily at sea and in aviation; it equals 6,080 feet and is 15% longer than aninternational or statute mile. 40



### Alaskan Activities

In Alaska, where tourism and commercial fisheries are key contributors to the economy, cruise ship pollution has received significant attention. After the state experienced a three-fold increase in the number of cruise ship passengers visits during the 1990s, 41 concern by Alaska Natives and other groups over impacts of cruise ship pollution on marine resources began to increase. In one prominent example of environmental violations, in July 1999, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines entered a federal criminal plea agreement involving total pena lties of $6.5 million for violations in Alaska, including knowingly discharging oil and hazardous substances (including dry-cleaning and photo processi ng chemicals). The company admitted to a fleet-wide practice of discharging oil-contaminated bilge water. The Alaska penalties were part of a larger $18 million total federal plea agreement involving environmental violations in multiple locations, including Florida, New York, and
California.

Public concern about the Royal Caribbean violations led the state to initiate a program in December 1999 to identify crui se ship waste streams. Voluntary sampling of large cruise ships in 2000 indi cated that waste treatment systems on mostCRS-19

42 As part of its efforts to develop these vessel discharge standards, in the summer of 2004 EPA sampled wastewater from four large cruise ships operating in Alaska waters in order to evaluate the performance of various treatment systems. Results of this sampling are available at [http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/results.html.

43 66 Federal Register 38926, July 26, 2001. ships did not function well a nd discharges greatly exceeded applicable U.S. Coast Guard standards for Type II MSDs. Fecal coliform levels sampled during that period averaged 12.8 million colonies per 100 milliliters in blackwater and 1.2 million in graywater, far in excess of the Coast Gu ard standard of 200 fecal coliforms per 100
milliliters.

**Federal Legislation.** Concurrent with growing regional interest in these problems, attention to the Alaska issues led to passage of federal legislation in December 2000 (Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations, Division B, Title XIV of the Miscellaneous Appropriations B ill, H.R. 5666, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554); 33 U.S.C. 1901 Note). This law
established standards for vessels with 500 or more overnight passengers and generally prohibited discharge of untreated sewage and graywater in navigable waters
of the United States within the state of Al aska. It authorized EPA to promulgate standards for sewage and gr aywater discharges from cruise ships in these waters. 42 Until such time as EPA issues regulations, cruise ships may discharge treated sewage wastes in Alaska waters only while trave ling at least 6 knots and while at least 1 nautical mile from shore, provided that th e discharge contains no more than 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml and no more than 150 mg/l total suspende d solids (the same limits prescribed in federal regulations for Type II MSDs).

The law also allows for discharges of treated sewage and graywater inside of one mile from shore and at speeds less th an 6 knots (thus including stationary discharges while a ship is at anchor) for vessels with systems that can treat sewage and graywater to a much stricter standard. Such vessels must meet these minimum
effluent standards: no more than 20 f ecal coliforms per 100 ml, no more than 30 mg/l of total suspended solids, and total residual chlorine concentrations not to exceed 10 mg/l. The legislation requires samp ling, data collection, and recordkeeping by vessel operators to facilitate Coast Guard oversight and enforcement. Regulations to implement the federal law were issued by the U.S. Coast Guard in July 2001 and
became effective immediately upon publication. 43 The regulations stipulate minimum sampling and testing procedures and provide for administrative and criminal penalties for violations of the law, as provided in the legislation.

Pursuant to Title IV, EPA carried out a multi-year project to determine whether
revised and/or additi onal standards for sewage and gr aywater discharges from large cruise ships operating in Alaska are warranted. In particular, EPA sampled wastewater from four cruise ships that operated in Alaska during the summers of 2004 and 2005 to characterize graywater and sewage generated onboard and to evaluate the performance of various treatment systems. Much of the information collected through this effort is summarize d in the 2007 Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.CRS-20

44 “Assessment of Impacts in Alaska,” pp. 33-57. In the 109 thCongress, the House approved legislation, H.R. 5681, with a provision (Section 410) directing the Coast Guard to conduct a demonstration project on the methods and best practices of the us e of smokestack scrubbers on cruise ships that operate in the Alaska cruise trade. The Senate did not act on H.R. 5681 before the 109th Congress adjourned in December 2006.

**Alaska State Legislation and Initiatives.** Building on the federal legislation enacted in 2000, the state of Al aska enacted its own law in June 2001 (AS 46.03.460-AS 46.03.490). The state law sets st andards and samp ling requirements for the underway discharge of blackwater in Alaska that are identical to the blackwater/sewage standards in the federal law. However, because of the high fecal coliform counts detected in graywater in 2000, the state law also extends the effluent standards to discharges of graywater. Sampling requirements fo r all ships took effect in 2001, as did effluent standards for black water discharges by large cruise ships (defined as providing overnight accommodations to 250 or more). Effluent standards for graywater discharges by large vessels took effect in 2003. Small ships (defined as providing overnight accommodations for 50 to 249 passengers) were allowed three years to come into compliance with all effluent standards. The law also established a scientific advisory panel to evaluate the effectiveness of the law’s implementation and to advise the state on scientific matters related to cruise ship impacts on the Alaskan environment and public health.

In February 2004, the state reported on co mpliance with the federal and state requirements for the years 2001-2003. 44 According to the state, the federal and state standards have prompted large ships to e ither install advanced wastewater treatment systems that meet the effluent standards or to manage wastes by holding all of their wastewater for discharge out side of Alaskan waters (b eyond 3 miles from shore). As of 2003, the majority of large ships ( 56%) had installed advanced technology (compared with 8% that ha d done so in 2001), while th e remaining 44% discharge outside of Alaska waters. As a result, the quality of wastewater discharged from large ships has improved dramatically, according to the state: the majority of conventional and toxic pollutants that ships must sample for were not detected, and test results indicate that wastewater from large ships with advanced wastewater treatment systems does not pose a risk to a quatic organisms or to human health, even during stationary discharge.

Small ships, however, had not installed new wastewater treatment systems, and the effluent quality has remained relatively constant, with discharge levels for several pollutants regularly exceeding state water quality standards. In particular, test results
indicated that concentrations of free chlorine, fecal coliform, copper, and zinc from stationary smaller vessels pose some risk to aquatic life and also to human health in areas where aquatic life is ha rvested for raw consumption.

In addition to the state’s 2001 action, in August 2006 Alaska voters approved a citizen initiative requiring cruise lines to pay the state a $50 head tax for each passenger and a corporate income tax, increasing fines for wastewater violations, and mandating new environmental regulations for cruise ships (such as a state permit forCRS-21

all discharges of treated wastewater). Revenues from the taxes will go to local communities affected by tourism and into pub lic services and fac ilities used by cruise ships. Supporters of the initiative conte nd that the cruise industry does not pay enough in taxes to compensate for its envi ronmental harm to the state and for the services it uses. Opponents argued that the initiative would hurt Alaska’s competitiveness for tourism.



### Other State Activities

Activity to regulate or prohibit cruise ship discharges also has occurred in
several other states.

In April 2004, the state of Maine enacted legislation governing discharges of graywater or mixed blackwater/graywater into coastal waters of the state (Maine LD. 1158). The legislation applies to large cruise ships (with overnight accommodations for 250 or more passengers) and allows such vessels into state waters after January 1, 2006, only if the ships have advanced wast ewater treatment systems, comply with discharge and recordkeeping requirements under the federal Alaska cruise ship law, and get a permit from the stat e Department of Environmen tal Protection. Under the law, prior to 2006, graywater dischargers were allowed if th e ship operated a treatment system conforming to requireme nts for continuous discharge systems under
the Alaska federal and state laws. In a ddition, the legislation required the state to apply to EPA for designation of up to 50 No Discharge Zones, in order that Maine may gain federal authorization to prohibit blackwater discharges into state waters. EPA approved the state’s NDZ reque st for Casco Bay in June 2006.

California enacted three bills in 2004. One bars cruise ships from discharging
treated wastewater while in the state’s waters (Calif. A.B. 2672) . Another prohibits vessels from releasing graywater (Calif. A.B. 2093), and the third measure prevents cruise ships from operating waste incinerators (Calif. A.B. 471). Additionally, in
2003 California enacted a law that bans passenger ships from discharging sewage sludge and oil bilge water (Calif. A.B. 121) , as well as a bill that prohibits vessels from discharging ha zardous wastes from photo-processing and dry cleaning operations into state waters (Calif. A.B. 906). Another measure was enacted in 2006: California S.B. 497 requiring the state to adopt ballast water performance standards by January 2008 and setting specific deadlines for the removal of different types of species from ballast water, mandating that ship operators remove invasive species (including bacteria) by the year 2020.

Several states, including Florida, Wa shington, and Hawaii, have entered into memoranda of agreement with the indus try (through the Inte rnational Council of Cruise Lines and related organizations) providing that cruise ships will adhere to certain practices concerning waste minimiz ation, waste reuse and recycling, and waste management. For example, under a 2001 agreement between industry and the state of Florida, cruise lines must eliminate wastewater discharges in state waters
within 4 nautical miles off the coast of Fl orida, report hazardous waste off-loaded in the United States by each vessel on an a nnual basis, and submit to environmental inspections by the U.S. Coast Guard.CRS-22

45 Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, “Focus on: Cruise Ship Discharges. Draft — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),” April 10, 2004, p. 2.

46 State of Washington. Department of Ecology. “2004 Assessment of Cruise Ship Environmental Effects in Washington.” January 2005. 22 p.

47 “Cruise Control,” p. 25. Similarly, in April 2004 the Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Cruise Ship Association, a nd Port of Seattle signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would allow cruise ships to discharge wastewater treated with advanced wastewater treatment systems into state waters and would prohibit the discharge of untreated wastewater and sludge. Environmental advocates are generally critical of such voluntary agreements, because they lack enforcement and penalty provisions. States respond that while the Clean Water Act limits a state’s ability to control cruise ship discharges, federal law does not bar states from entering into voluntary agreements that have mo re rigorous requirements. 45 In January 2005 the Department of Ecology reported that cruise ships visiting the state during the 2004 sailing season mostly complied with the MOU to stop discharging untreated wastewater, leading to some improvement in manage ment of wastes. Although enforcement of what is essentially a voluntary agreement is difficult, the state argues that having something in place to protect water quality, while not lessening the state’s authority, is
beneficial. 46



### Industry Initiatives

Pressure from environmental advocates , coupled with th e industry’ s strong desire to promote a positive image, have le d the cruise ship industry to respond with several initiatives. In 2001, me mbers of the Internationa l Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), which represents 16 of the world’s la rgest cruise lines, adopted a set of waste management practices and procedures for their worldwide operations building on regulations of the IMO and U.S. EPA. The guidelines generally require graywater and blackwater to be discharged only while a ship is underway and at least 4 miles from shore and require that hazardous wa stes be recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Twelve major cruise line companies also have implemented Safety Management System (SMS) plans for developing enhanced wastewater systems and increased auditing oversight. These SMS plans ar e certified in accordance with the IMO’s International Safety Management Code. The industry also is working with equipment manufacturers and re gulators to develop and test technologies in areas such as lower emission turbine engines and ballast water management for elimination of non-native species. Environmenta l groups commend industry for voluntarily adopting improved management practices but also believe that enforceable standards are preferable to voluntary standa rds, no matter how well intentioned. 47

The ICCL joined with the environmen tal group Conservation International (CI)
to form the Ocean Conservation and T ourism Alliance to work on a number of issues. In December 2003 they announced conservation efforts in four areas to protect biodiversity in coastal areas : improving technology for wastewaterCRS-23

48 EPA White Paper, p. 16.

49 “Assessment of Impacts in Alaska,” p. 12. management aboard cruise ships, working with local governments to protect the
natural and cultural assets of cruise destinations, raising passenger and crew awareness and support of critical conservation issues, and educating vendors to lessen the environmental imp acts of products from cruise ship suppliers. Because two-thirds of the top cruise destinations in the world are located in the Caribbean and Mediterranean, two important biodivers ity regions, in March 2006 ICCL and CI announced a joint initiative to develop a map integrating sensitive marine areas into cruise line navigational charts, with the goal of protecting critical marine and coastal
ecosystems.

In May 2004, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. announced plans to retrofit all vessels in its 29-ship fleet with advan ced wastewater treatment technology by 2008, becoming the first cruise line to commit to doing so completely. The company had been the focus of efforts by the envi ronmental group Oceana to pledge to adopt measures that will protect th e ocean environment and that could serve as a model for others in the cruise ship industry, in partbecause of the company’s efforts to alter its practices following federal enforcement actions in the 1990s for environmental violations that resulted in RCCL paying criminal fines that totaled $27 million.



## Issues for Congress

Concerns about cruise ship pollution ra ise issues for Congress in three broad areas: adequacy of laws and regulations , research needs, and oversight and enforcement of existing programs and requirements. Attention to these issues is relatively recent, and more assessment is needed of existing conditions and whether current steps (public and private) are ade quate. Bringing the issues to national priority sufficient to obtain resources thatwill address the problems is a challenge.

**Laws and Regulations.** A key issue is whether the several existing U.S. laws, international pr otocols and standards, state activities, and industry initiatives described in this report ade quately address mana gement of cruise ship pollution, or whether legislative changes are needed to fill in gaps, remedy exclusions, or strengthen current requirements. As EPA noted in its 2000 white paper, certain cruise ship waste streams such as o il and solid waste are regulated under a comprehensive set of laws and regulations , but others, such as graywater, are excluded or treated in ways that appear to leave gaps in coverage. 48 Graywater is one particular area of interest, since investigations, such as sampling by state of Alaska officials, have found substantial contamination of cruise ship graywater from fecal coliform, bacteria, heavy metals, and dissolved plastics. State officials were surprised that graywater from ships’ galley and sink waste streams tested higher for fecal coliform than did the ships’ sewage lines. 49 One view advocating strengthened requirements came from the U.S. Commissi on on Ocean Policy. In its 2004 final report, the Commission advocated clear, uniform requirements for controlling the discharge of wastewater from large pa ssenger vessels, as well as consistentCRS-24

50 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21 st Century,” September 2004, p. 243. interpretation and enforcement of those requirements. It recommended that Congress establish a new statutory regime that should include:

! uniform discharge standards and waste management procedures.

! thorough recordkeeping requirements to track the waste management

process.

! required sampling, testing, and mon itoring by vessel operators using uniform protocols

! flexibility and incentives to encourage industry investment in innovative treatment technologies. 50

A proposal reflecting some of these con cepts, the Clean Cruise Ship Act, was
introduced in the 109 thCongress as S. 793 (Durbi n) and H.R. 1636 (Farr), but Congress did not act on either bill. The bills were free-standing legislation that would not have amended any current law, nor ratified Annex IV of MARPOL. The legislation would have prohibited cruise ve ssels entering a U.S. port from discharging sewage, graywater, or bilge water into waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes, except in compliance with prescribed effluent limits and management
standards. It further would have direct ed EPA and the Coast Guard to promulgate effluent limits for sewage and graywater discharges from cruise vessels that were no less stringent than the more restrictive standards under the existing federal Alaska cruise ship law described above. It would have requi red cruise ships to treat wastewater wherever they operate and au thorized broadened federal enforcement authority, including inspection, sampling, and testing. Environmental advocates supported this legislation. Industry groups argued that it targeted an industry that represents only a small percentage of th e world’s ships and that environmental standards of the industry, including vol untary practices, alr eady meet or exceed
current international and U.S. regulations.

As noted above, some states have passe d legislation to re gulate cruise ship discharges. If this state-level activity in creases, Congress could see a need to develop federal legislation that w ould harmonize differences inthe states’ approaches.

Another issue for Congress is the status of EPA’s efforts to manage or regulate cruise ship wastes. As discussed prev iously, in 2000 Congress authorized EPA to issue standards for sewage and graywate r discharges from large cruise ships operating in Alaska. The agency has been collecting information and assessing the need for additional standards, beyond thos e provided in P.L. 106-554, but has not yet proposed any rules. In December 2007, EPA re leased a Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report that builds on the 2000 White Paper and partially responds to the 2000 petition by Bluewater Netw ork and other groups that seek to force EPA to address cruise ship pollution (see page 2). The draft report examines five cruise ship waste streams (sewage, graywater, oil bilg e water, solid waste, and hazardous waste)
and discusses how the waste streams are ma naged and current actions by the federal government to address the waste stream s. However, while the draft report summarizes available information, it does not include recommendations or optionsCRS-25

51 EPA Draft Cruise Ship Discharg e Assessment Report, pp. 2-36 - 2-39.

52 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21 st Century,” September 2004, p. 249. to address management of cruise ship wastes. A fina l report, expected at the end of 2008, could include such alternatives.

Other related issues of interest c ould include harmonizing the differences presented in U.S. laws for key jurisdictional terms as they apply to cruise ships and other types of vessels; providing a single definition of “cruise ship,” which is defined variously in federal and state laws and rules, with respectto gross tonnage of ships, number of passengers carried, presence of overnight passenger accommodations, or primary purpose of the vessel; or requiring updating of exis ting regulations to reflect improved technology (such as the MSD rules that were issued in 1976).

**Research.** Several areas of research might help improve understanding of the quantities of waste generated by cruise ships, impacts of discharges and emissions, and the potential for new control technol ogies. In the 2007 Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment report, EPA stated th at it is evaluating technologies for the treatment of sewage and graywater, in cluding some now used for land-based treatment that could be adapted for shi pboard application, and anticipates making these analyses publicly available later in 2008. 51

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy noted in its 2004 final report that research can help identify the degree of harm represented by vessel pollution and can assist in prioritizing limited resources to a ddress the most significant threats. The commission identified several directions for research by the Coast Guard, EPA, NOAA, and other appropriate entities on the fates and impacts of vessel pollution: 52

! Processes that govern the transport of pollutants in the marine
environment.

! Small passenger ve ssel practices, including the impacts of stationary discharges.

! Disposal options for concentrated sludge resulting from advanced sewage treatment on la rge passenger vessels.

! Cumulative impacts of commercial and recreational vessel pollution on particularly sensitive ecosystems, such as coastal areas with low tidal exchange and coral reef systems.

! Impacts of vessel air emissions, particularly in ports and inland waterways where the surrounding ar ea is already having difficulty meeting air quality standards.

**Oversight and Enforcement.** The 2000 GAO report documented — and EPA’s 2000 cruise ship white paper ac knowledged — that existing laws and regulations may not be adequately enforced or implement ed. GAO said there is need for monitoring of the discharges from cruise ships in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of current standards and management. GAO also said that increased federal oversight of cruise ships by the Coast Guard and other agencies is needed concerning maintenance and operation of pollution preven tion equipment, falsifyingCRS-26

53 2000 GAO Report, p. 34.

54 U.S. General Accounting Office, Coast Guard: Relationship between Resources Used and
Results Achieved Needs to be Clearer , GAO-04-432, March 2004. Also see CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress , by Ronald O’Rourke. of oil record books (which are required fo r compliance with MARPOL), and analysis of records to verify proper off-loading of garbage and oily sludge to onshore disposal
facilities. 53

The Coast Guard has primary enforcement responsibility for many of the federal programs concerning cruise ship polluti on. A key oversight and enforcement issue is the adequacy of the Coast Guard’s re sources to support its multiple homeland and non-homeland security missions. The res ource question as it relates to vessel inspections was raised even before the Se ptember 11 terrorist attacks, in the GAO’s 2000 report. The same question has been ra ised since then, in light of the Coast Guard’s expanded responsibilities fo r homeland security and resu lting shift in operations, again by the GAO and others. 54

In its 2000 report, GAO also found that th e process for referring cruise ship
violations to other countries does not appear to be working, either within the Coast Guard or internationally, and GAO recommended that the Coast Guard work with the IMO to encourage member countries to respond when pollution cases are referred to them and that the Coast Guard make greater efforts to periodically follow up on alleged pollution cases occurring outside U.S. jurisdiction.