Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Ship Industry (16 page)

In 2000 the Justice Department subpoenaed records from Norwegian Cruise Line after its parent company, Star Cruises, reported it had uncovered questionable practices prior to its ownership of the company.
¹³
Carnival Corporation was also subpoenaed in 2000 for records relating to the environmental practices of ships with each of its six cruise lines.
¹⁴
In April 2002 Carnival Corporation pleaded guilty to six counts of falsifying records in relation to oil discharges. In the plea agreement the company admitted to dumping oily waste from five ships operated by Carnival Cruise Line and also admitted that employees had made false entries in record books from 1998 to 2001. Carnival paid a $9-million fine and will contribute $9 million to environmental projects over five years. In addition, Carnival agreed to five years of court supervision and also pledged to hire new managers and to put in place an executive-level environmental standards program.

In July 2002, Norwegian Cruise Line signed a plea agreement with the US Department of Justice in which it pleaded guilty to the discharge of oily bilge water between 1997 and May 2000, and to falsifying its discharge logs. The company was fined $1 million and ordered to pay $500,000 toward environmental service projects in South Florida. Federal prosecutors described the sentence as lenient.

Trust Us — Let Bygones Be Bygones

There have been some encouraging changes on the part of the industry. Increasingly, the new cruise ships have more efficient engines that use cleaner burning fuels and technologically advanced propulsion systems, such as the Azipod. A large proportion of new ships rely on gas turbine engines and on diesel electric power plants

— both are major improvements over the traditional sources of power. However, older ships continue to operate without upgrades.

Money may be a greater motivator than environmental responsibility when it comes to moving the cruise industry toward putting in place more environmentally friendly practices and technologies. The new podded propulsion systems, such as Azipod and Mermaid, are attractive because they are cost-effective and eliminate a number of main components (long shaft lines, reduction gears, rudders, rudder machinery, transversal stern thrusters), which reduces breakdowns and maintenance costs.
¹⁵
These systems also provide fuel savings because of greater hydrodynamic efficiency; in addition, they reduce the capital cost of ship construction.

Because it frees space that has traditionally been filled with machinery, another benefit of the Azipod system is that it enables cruise lines to increase the number of revenue-generating cabins onboard a ship. Royal Caribbean CEO Richard Fain suggests that

THE CASE OF ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL

The case began on October 25, 1994, when the crew of a US Coast Guard tracking plane reported seeing oil slicks off the coast of Puerto Rico. The only ship in the area was the
Sovereign of the Seas.
Coast Guard officials in San Juan were radioed and the ship was investigated when it arrived in port.

The investigation determined that, on at least 5 of its 11 ships, Royal Caribbean International had intentionally bypassed the oily water separator (anti-pollution equipment) so that waste could be discharged directly into the sea. Investigators found that between 1990 and 1994 "on a regular and routine basis, and including at least about one or more times each month," crew members dumped oil-contaminated bilge water overboard. Investigators also found that the company had falsified records that would have documented the releases. Three methods were used for bypassing the oily water separator:

•    a connection, concealed beneath the engine-room deck plates, allowed bilge water to be pumped overboard from storage tanks by using the clean bilge system ejector pump

•    a pipe which could be routed from the bilge waste tank to the overboard discharge pipe downstream from the oily water separator and through which, using the bilge pump,

oil-contaminated bilge waste could be discharged directly overboard

•    pumping of bilge wells directly overboard with the ejector pump.

The Coast Guard investigation of the
Sovereign of the Seas
revealed that "at various US ports, mariners allegedly removed the ejector pump bypass system's rubber hose, then closed off the connection

the space saving provided by the Azipod system, combined with the use of gas turbine engines on Celebrity Cruises’ Millennium-class ships, allows space for up to 50 additional cabins.

between the clean and oily bilge systems with a metal plate to conceal the existence and use of the hose to bypass the oily water separator."
⁹

Royal Caribbean was formally charged in December 1996,
¹⁰
not for illegal dumping but on a single count of making a false statement to the Coast Guard about the
Nordic Empress
discharge off Bermuda, and a single count for the discharge from the
Sovereign of the Seas
while en route to San Juan. Royal Caribbean paid a $9-million fine in June 1998 to settle cases in San Juan and Miami.
¹¹

Less than a month later, Royal Caribbean reported a new dumping episode to the US Coast Guard.
¹²
The offence had been reported to the company by crew members; two engineers were fired.

Based on this episode and dozens of others investigated in other jurisdictions in the United States, Royal Caribbean International pleaded guilty in July 1999 to 21 felony counts of dumping oil and hazardous chemicals and one count of making a false statement to the US Coast Guard. With plea agreements in Miami, New York City, Los Angeles, Anchorage, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands, the company agreed to pay an $18-million fine. Its violations included dumping not just oil but also dry-cleaning fluids, photographic chemicals, and solvents from the print shop.

In August 1999 the State of Alaska filed suit against Royal Caribbean International alleging seven counts of violating laws on oil and hazardous waste disposal. In January 2000 Royal Caribbean was fined $6.5 million for dumping toxic chemicals and oil-contaminated water into the state's waters. The cruise line agreed not to discharge wastewater within three miles of Alaska's coastline.

Although other, more minor offenses have occurred, no major releases of environmentally hazardous substances have been reported in the past couple of years. In 2000 the State of Alaska instituted a program, called the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, initially funded by collected fines, that monitors waste disposal by cruise ships in Alaskan waters, particularly the Inside Passage.

New Water Treatment Systems

New systems for dealing with sewage and “graywater” (water from sinks, showers, and the galley) have also been introduced. One such system, developed by Zenon Environmental of Oakville, Ontario, Canada, filters wastewater and sewage to yield pure water. In view of Alaska’s targeted anti-pollution program, the systems are being installed primarily on ships devoted to that market. Holland America Line, for example, clearly states in the Winter 2002 issue of
Mariner
(the company’s past passenger magazine), that the Zenon system already has been implemented on two ships; the stated plan was to install the system on three more ships bound for Alaska before the 2002 season.

The incentive is clear. With the new system the company is allowed to dispose of treated wastewater anywhere within the Inside Passage; without the system the ship is required to travel 12 miles from shore before discharging untreated sewage. At the same time, these systems are not being installed on new ships currently being built. It appears that they are being deployed only on ships sailing the Inside Passage of Alaska — only where there is a direct financial benefit for the cruise line. The benefit provided to the environment is questionable. The Zenon system reportedly produces between 30 and 50 tons of sewage sludge per week, which is held until the ship is beyond the twelve mile limit required by MARPOL and then released.

Cruise lines are also being given an incentive by Alaska to clean their smokestack emissions. The state levied $577,500 in fines in 2000 and 2001. Almost one-third of the fines ($175,000) was suspended on the condition that there would be no infractions in 2002. Holland America Line was fined the largest amount: $165,000 for six violations in 2000, of which $55,000 was suspended, and $27,500 for one violation in 2001, which was also suspended. The suspended penalties are conditional on Holland America Line’s
Veendam
being without violations in 2002. Similar incentives were provided to Crystal Cruises, Princess Cruises, and World Explorer Cruises, all of which had also polluted the waters.

We Promise to Dump Only What’s Legal

In July 1999, several weeks after the plea agreement between the Justice Department and Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, the ICCL made a commitment to standards for waste management, with the assurance that:

member lines have strengthened their own environmental policies and procedures, and closely monitor onboard activities to ensure these standards are maintained. The internal procedures are designed to meet existing and comprehensive federal, state, and international standards designed to prevent discharges from all commercial vessels.
¹⁷

While the ICCL commitment and mandatory standards set protocols for performance, no one has the responsibility of verifying and enforcing the standards.

Several months after the ICCL commitment, Celebrity Cruises’
Mercury
allegedly dumped perchloroethylene (a dry-cleaning solvent, often called “perc”) into San Francisco Bay. After being given a run-around by the EPA, a couple brought the matter to the Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based environmental group, which is taking legal action. Despite the eyewitness account, Celebrity denied the allegation.
¹⁸
The EPA subsequently undertook its own criminal investigation; at this point, the outcome is unknown.

Two years later, in June 2001, the ICCL reaffirmed its commitment by adopting “New Mandatory Environmental Standards for Cruise Ships.” The announcement was made while the Alaska State Senate was in a special session considering legislation that would authorize the monitoring of cruise ships emissions and would enforce environmental standards.

The new standards responded to the public outcry against the types of pollution dumped by Royal Caribbean International. However, they were merely consistent with common sense practice and with existing requirements under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MAR-POL; international regulations for waste disposals at sea). Most of us would think common sense is enough to prevent dumping chemicals such as silver, xylene, benzene, turpentine, methyl ethyl ketone, cadmium, chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and perchloroethylene into the sea.

Need for Stricter Regulations

While it is easy to point the finger at the cruise industry as the sole problem, the rules and regulations under which the industry operates is a contributing factor. You may be disgusted by what is thrown into the seas, but in most cases whatever is disposed of is done so legally. Cruise lines act within international guidelines. Under the ICCL commitment, cruise lines have simply agreed to follow those international regulations.

Current Environmental Standards and Initiatives

The primary international regulation of marine pollution is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
¹⁹
In general terms, MARPOL makes it illegal to dispose of plastic and oil anywhere at sea. Otherwise, almost anything can be legally dumped into the sea.

Two parts of MARPOL apply particularly to cruise ships:
²⁰