are difficult for shoreside managers to discover , yet very easy for whistleblower crew members to record with their mobile phones .
Adding to these challenges , most MARPOL cases also involve “ other ” criminal conduct , such as lying to USCG investigators , manipulating or destroying vessel records , or even failing to report a hazardous condition . This risk only heightens the need for a deeper level of compliance oversight . For example , in January 2023 , both the owner and the operator of a containership were sentenced for violating APPS and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act . The container ship ’ s crew members had tricked the oil-content meter on the OWS so that they could discharge bilge water exceeding 15 ppm overboard , which in turn rendered the ORB false , but they also had disabled pressure relief valves on fuel oil heaters that were leaking oil , which created an explosion risk . 1
What Can Be Done ? There is no secret formula for avoiding all risks attendant to a MARPOL violation ; however , we strongly recommend focusing on two aspects of the business : culture and shoreside involvement .
It cannot be said enough that a compliance culture starts from the top down . A company ’ s senior management must fully buy in and commit to regulatory compliance , but also create an environment where seafarers feel comfortable reporting internally — or are even incentivized to do so . Similarly , a compliance culture includes implementing systems tailored to your operations and designed to identify , investigate , and promptly fix non-compliance issues , which may necessarily include transparency with flag state authorities and / or port state control officials about the findings and plans to come into compliance . For example , if a company detects and reports a potential MARPOL violation to the flag state while en route to the United States and notes the issue and the ongoing investigation in the ORB , the ORB will not be false and the USCG is likely to defer to the flag state ’ s jurisdiction if the flag state takes the matter seriously .
Active involvement of shoreside managers ( including technical superintendents and the Designated Person Ashore ) is also crucial to reducing the risk of a MARPOL violation .
Personnel who are present can foster good relationships with the crew , encouraging them to report any potential issues shoreside so they can be addressed , rather than reporting to the USCG . In this current crewing crisis , particular attention should be paid to ships with senior engineers who are new to the company , its culture , and its SMS . The same is true with respect to vessels that have not recently called on a U . S . port , as they are likely to receive more scrutiny from the USCG .
Similarly , the more familiar management is with the vessel , the more likely they are to notice problems that could become the root cause behind the crew ’ s decision to improperly discharge oily water . Companies also should consider periodically engaging in a detailed review of bilge water management on board their ships and promptly follow up on any abnormalities .
Implementing these recommendations requires an investment of resources , but that investment is worthwhile if it means avoiding financial and reputational penalties emanating from a MARPOL prosecution . p – 2023 BLANK ROME LLP
MAINBRACE • 4