Princess fined $40 million for contaminating ocean

Based on a report tonight on CBS news, the Caribbean Princess was discharging waste into the ocean thru a "magic pipe" that was hidden from inspectors. A "whistle blower" turned them in, resulting in the largest fine ever levied against a cruise line. Sorry, don't have a video link to the story. I'm sure one will show up soon.

Absolutely disgusting!!!

How could this pipe be used without management knowing of it's existence?

ex techie

Absolutely disgusting!!!

 

How could this pipe be used without management knowing of it's existence?

 

ex techie

The TV news report didn't say whether Princess management knew about it or not. It simply said that it was "hidden" from inspectors. The implication (but not stated) point was that the ship's personnel knew exactly what was happening and that this was a standard procedure when the ship was out in the ocean.

Clean and green in port and totally gross at sea???

The TV news report didn't say whether Princess management knew about it or not. It simply said that it was "hidden" from inspectors. The implication (but not stated) point was that the ship's personnel knew exactly what was happening and that this was a standard procedure when the ship was out in the ocean.

 

Clean and green in port and totally gross at sea???

By management' date=' I meant aboard the ships. They knew about it.

The Chief Engineer and Senior First Engineer ordered a cover up!

http://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-news/16070-u-s-justice-department-fines-princess-cruises-40-million-for-pollution.html

And this apology from Jan Swartz shows how inept their ship based and shoreside management was.

Yet another case of Carnival Corp cutting corners to save money.....

[YOUTUBE]XTBT8Vz_cdw[/YOUTUBE]

So insincere given their environmental cruise report card:

http://www.foe.org/cruise-report-card

Carnival (D)

Princess ©

Fathom (D)

P&O (F)

Costa (F)

Holland ©

Seabourn (D)

Cunard ©

They truly are a disgusting company and organization.

ex techie

There is a lot more info in the above post than I initially found--thanks! Yeah, the hollow, required apology from the CEO....not believable.

So insincere given their environmental cruise report card:

 

http://www.foe.org/cruise-report-card

 

Carnival (D)

Princess ©

Fathom (D)

P&O (F)

Costa (F)

Holland ©

Seabourn (D)

Cunard ©

They truly are a disgusting company and organization.

Keeping with the DCL board, Disney appears to get A's across the board, except for a C- in Air Pollution Reduction, and the only major line not to get an F in Transparency. (Which singlehandedly averaged the others' scores to D's and C's.)

There is a lot more info in the above post than I initially found--thanks! Yeah' date=' the hollow, required apology from the CEO....not believable.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately the fine is a drop in the ocean for Micky Arison and his shareholders. It should have been $400 million when they found out other ships were doing the same. Put a real dent in their finances.

 

ex techie

I hope that some reasonable portion of that fine goes to the person who quit his job and reported Princess. No, I don't think he should be set for life based on these actions, but he certainly deserves something for the effort he put forth.

I hope that some reasonable portion of that fine goes to the person who quit his job and reported Princess. No' date=' I don't think he should be set for life based on these actions, but he certainly deserves something for the effort he put forth.[/quote']

 

100% agree!

 

ex techie

SHAME ON THEM. SHAME!

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/princess-cruise-lines-pay-largest-ever-criminal-penalty-deliberate-vessel-pollution

Illegal discharges took place on the Caribbean Princess dating back to 2005, one year after the vessel started operations, as part of a conspiracy to violate the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and to obstruct justice.

Different bypass methods were used over the course of time, including a “magic pipe” used to transfer oily waste overboard.

After learning that an engineer had blown the whistle, senior ship engineers dismantled the bypass pipe and instructed crew members to lie.

Prior to the MCA boarding, the chief engineer and senior first engineer ordered crew members to lie. Following the MCA’s inquiry, the chief engineer held a sham meeting in the engine control room to pretend to look into the allegations while holding up a sign stating: “LA is listening.” The engineers present understood that anything said might be heard by those at the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles, California, because the engine control room contained a recording device intended to monitor conversations in the event of an incident.

When using the magic pipe, engineers processed sea water through the oily water separator in order to create a digital record to account for the missing waste.

Shore-side management failed to provide and exercise sufficient supervision and management controls to prevent or detect criminal violations by Caribbean Princess crew members.

A perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of England told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense.

Princess engineers on the Caribbean Princess indicated that the chief engineer responsible for the discharge on Aug. 26, 2013, was known as “broccino corto” (a person with short arms), an Italian expression for a cheap person whose arms are too short to reach his wallet. Some expressed the same opinion of the shore-side superintendent.

Graywater tanks overflowed into the bilges on a routine basis and were pumped back into the graywater system and then improperly discharged overboard when they were required to be treated as oil contaminated bilge waste. The overflows took place when internal floats in the graywater collection tanks got stuck due to large amounts of fat, grease and food particles from the galley that drained into the graywater system. Graywater tanks overflowed at least once a month and, at times, as frequently as once per week. Princess had no written procedures or training for how internal gray water spills were supposed to be cleaned up and the problem remained uncorrected for many years.

Princess discovered “stub pipes” along the entire length of the ship for the apparent purpose of pumping graywater overflows into the bilges back into the graywater system and subsequently overboard.

Rotten from the top down to the core.

ex techie

Well said Chief!

As probably the only person here on CC that deals with oily water separators, oil record books, and marine pollution prevention on a daily basis, I'll jump in here with a few comments.

 

First off, while the Chief and the First were totally at fault for doing this, an unfortunate fact of maritime life is that ships still to this day, after MARPOL and it's fines being in effect since 1973, continue to use the "magic pipe" method of disposing of oily wastes. This is not just cruise ships, but I see notices of convictions almost monthly by the US DOJ against cargo ships. While the officers onboard the ship are held responsible, rightly so, no Chief Engineer wakes up one morning and says "I'll save the company a whole lot of money, and jeopardize my license, by getting rid of oily water overboard". No, what the culture is, and I know this because I worked for NCL shortly after they were fined for pollution, and have also worked for a tanker company that was also fined, both companies being placed on multi-year probations by the DOJ, is that the Chief Engineer notifies the company that he has 30 metric tons of waste oil to dispose of properly to shore facilities. The corporate headquarters comes back and says, "Sure, we will get a slops barge at the next port, along with a new Chief Engineer". It is all about the money, and the money doesn't benefit the officers or crew onboard. Again, I will say that the only one who did right was the junior engineer who reported the violation.

 

As to why the "magic pipe" exists? Oily bilge water from ships must be processed before it is allowed to go into the sea, and the oil content must be below 15ppm. Operating and maintaining this equipment is costly (all about the money, remember?). The oil that is separated from the bilge water is retained onboard, and can either be incinerated if the ship is capable of doing so, or it is discharged ashore or to barges that take it to licensed incineration or reclamation vendors, who charge a pretty penny to dispose of this stuff, since they know you have to do it (all about the money, remember?).

 

This is definitely a corporate culture issue, it is not due to some "rogue officers" as the company would like you to believe. What benefit is it to these "rogue officers"?

 

I will say that in my 40 years at sea, the cruise lines are the most advanced and conscientious followers of maritime pollution laws. They have spent, and I've used onboard, some of the most advanced systems there are. Admittedly, one of the largest reasons is that they have been caught in the past by passenger video, and with smart phones this is even more prevalent, and the fact that the EPA gives a reward for reporting this, makes every one of the thousands of passengers onboard a possible whistleblower. That said, a single marine superintendent, responsible for the operation and maintenance of 3-4 ships within a fleet, may decide that his annual bonus depends on not spending money on slops removal, and so direct his Chief Engineers.

 

The US, just like the UK, is signatory to MARPOL, and can therefore prosecute any violation of MARPOL anywhere in the world, by a ship of any flag. When the USCG boards a foreign flag cruise ship (or cargo ship), they do so as a "port state" agency (government of the port the ship is in). Port states have all passed laws upholding MARPOL, and so incorrect oil record book entries to cover up violations, regardless of where the incident occurred, are violations in US law. The USCG, as well as the UK's MCA, can enforce international conventions on foreign ships in their waters, they cannot for instance enforce the stricter USCG regulations that apply to US flag ships. The original offense was reported after the incident, when the engineer left the ship in Southampton, and the ship had obviously sailed on its transatlantic, so MCA passed the information to the USCG for investigation.

 

In fact, it is a requirement for the Captain to sign every page of the Oil Record Book as being correct and complete. Now, there are ways that can be used to make illegal discharges look legal (mostly by matching the amount discharged over a given time to the rated capacity of the oil water separator), but if the Chief and the Captain don't have a very, very close relationship, then there is another systemic problem with the company.

 

I noted that in Princess' statement of corrective actions, they "restructured our entire fleet operations organization, including new leadership." (bolding mine) This shows that the problem was at the corporate level, and systemic.

 

$40 million is the largest fine imposed for these kinds of violations. The previous was $35 million for one actual illegal discharge and 5-6 cases of incorrect Oil Record Book entries, in 2008. Based on the DOJ's precedents for these cases, Princess will be placed on probation for 4-5 years, a new department will be created in the company that inspects the ships for environmental compliance and that reports directly to the CEO outside of any other chain of command, and establishes a hotline for crew to report improper activities. Likely the reason there was a management shuffle is that otherwise the company executives would be convicted felons, and required to wear ankle monitors (as was done in the 2008 case).

 

While this is a true black eye for Princess, and the cruise industry, as I've said, they are some of the best at environmental compliance in the industry, and going forward Princess will be the most conscientious, as part of the standard DOJ settlement for these offenses is that a repeat offence will result in a ten fold fine ($400 million). No CEO or Chairman can withstand that king of loss, along with the attendant PR nightmare.

ex techie

I hope that some reasonable portion of that fine goes to the person who quit his job and reported Princess. No' date=' I don't think he should be set for life based on these actions, but he certainly deserves something for the effort he put forth.[/quote']

 

I do not know how accurate this information still is since the article was dated 5 years ago, but supposedly the whistle-blower will get some sort of reward based off of the fine amount....

 

"In the United States, according to a special provision in the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C, Section 1908 a), individuals involved in reporting a violation that leads to a conviction are eligible to receive up to half of the fine incurred by the company. In the past three-and-a-half years, over one third of maritime prosecutions have resulted in awards to whistleblowers, ranging from $40,000 to $400,000."

 

 

http://www.marinedefenders.com/commercial/rewards.php

I've posted, including the one quoted by techie above, on both the HAL and Princess forums about this violation.

Before I go any further, I am in no way condoning what Princess did, and regard their corporate officers to be the truly culpable people. But, before we get too far down the "contaminating the ocean" thing lets realize a few facts about this, and know that there is a lot we and the USCG and DOJ will never know.

First, let me say that contrary to what folks believe, discharging of oil at sea is legal, within limits. Bilge water, or water that accumulates in the engineering spaces bilges, is typically mixed with some oil. Bilge water is allowed to be discharged to sea if it's oil content is less than 15ppm. This is the function of the oil water separator, which has a meter to measure the oil content, and determine whether the bilge water can be pumped overboard or not. This monitor does not care if the bilge water has 30,000ppm or 16ppm, anything over 15ppm will be rejected and retained onboard. Now, one of the things Princess did was to add a stream of clean sea water to the sample connection so that the oil in the sample is diluted to below the required 15ppm, and the bilge water can go overboard. Now, how oily was this water? No one will ever know. It could be that many thousands of tons of water was pumped overboard at a mere 20ppm, which while still illegal, will have virtually no different effect on the oceans than legally discharged 15ppm water.

The second thing Princess did was when a gray water (waste water from sinks, showers, galleys and laundries) tank overflowed into the engine room bilges, they made up a connection so they could pump the bilges back to the gray water tank. Now, once the gray water touched the engine room bilges, it was no longer gray water, but was now bilge water, and should have been processed as such for removal of oil. They did not do this because of the volume involved, the oil water separators are notoriously slow in order to remove as much oil as possible. Gray water will be treated in the ship's waste water treatment plant, but this has no oil removal capability, other than the natural ability of the bacteria in the system to digest oil. Now, again, the vast majority of this water was gray water, which would not have any oil in it to start with, and the only oil it would have would come from the bilges. Anyone who has seen a cruise ship engine room knows that the bilges are clean enough to eat off of, as the lines work hard at bilge management (limiting the leakage and spillage of oil into the bilges), so the bilge water can be treated efficiently. So, how many parts per million did this gray water have? We will never know, but my guess is very low.

Again, I'm not condoning what Princess did, but this is far different from a tanker running aground and spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean.

I've worked for two companies (one cruise line, one tanker company) that were under DOJ probation for violations like this, all from the foreign flag portion of our fleet, happy to say never from the US fleet. The restrictions placed on the companies by the court make life very difficult for the shipboard staff, while not so much on the shoreside staff, which I feel is unjust, but it will create a culture of compliance like no other means. A further violation found by the court appointed auditor will result in felony convictions for corporate officers and a ten-fold fine ($400 million).

Thanks for your insight yet again Chief!

We are so lucky to have you on the boards to explain the in's and out's of technical marine environments, procedures and laws!

The biggest problem(s) I have with what they did was they were essentially crapping on their own doorstep, along with everyone else's just in order to save time and money.

I totally agree with you that this was a direct result of poor or no proper management shoreside, and the push from corporate to cut operational costs by turning a blind eye to how these cost savings were achieved.

It is incredulous for shoreside to not know what was going on and they probably had a "ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies" attitude to it, so as long as they saw operational cost lowered they were happy to let it happen.

That and the fact this has been happening since 2005, and yet of all of the engineers they employed, only one in all of that time across 5 vessels felt it right to report this happening.

That shows either the level of ignorance these crew had or a management style that imposed fear in them speaking up or reporting it.

I think $40 Million is way too low, and they really needed to hit in the wallet to set an example to them and others that this will not be tolerated.

ex techie

Thanks for your insight yet again Chief!

We are so lucky to have you on the boards to explain the in's and out's of technical marine environments, procedures and laws!

 

The biggest problem(s) I have with what they did was they were essentially crapping on their own doorstep, along with everyone else's just in order to save time and money.

 

I totally agree with you that this was a direct result of poor or no proper management shoreside, and the push from corporate to cut operational costs by turning a blind eye to how these cost savings were achieved.

It is incredulous for shoreside to not know what was going on and they probably had a "ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies" attitude to it, so as long as they saw operational cost lowered they were happy to let it happen.

 

That and the fact this has been happening since 2005, and yet of all of the engineers they employed, only one in all of that time across 5 vessels felt it right to report this happening.

That shows either the level of ignorance these crew had or a management style that imposed fear in them speaking up or reporting it.

 

I think $40 Million is way too low, and they really needed to hit in the wallet to set an example to them and others that this will not be tolerated.

 

ex techie

More than a "don't ask, don't tell" culture, I can assure you it was like I said in the post you quoted, "Sure, we'll have a slops barge waiting, and your replacement will be on the dock as well, here's your final paycheck". In today's litigation ridden society, there is always something management can dig up to fire you for, other than asking for slops removal.

And unfortunately, just like emergencies, until the time comes, regardless of how well trained you are, you never know whether you will run towards the fire or away, and you never know whether you will jeopardize your family's well being or not.

Now, while this has been going on for a long time, we don't know how many times it happened, but there were only 7 felony charges. Even improper recording in the Oil Record Book is a felony. I've read where one instance was a reportedly common practice to dilute the sample water, and that was between 2012-2013, but again, we don't know how many times it happened. My guess is that with the exception of the dilution incidents, which would be one charge, that there were at most 6 illegal discharges found. That's 7 too many, but still not a "routine" practice, since the ship needs to discharge bilge water at least every other week.

Chief,

I am presuming that shoreside would have records of invoices from vendors that provided the slops barges that would show how frequently they collected the waste, and how much? That would indicate how often the slops were removed properly and I would think there is a "average" number of tons that would be expected per engine running hours?

I agree that corporate were the ones pushing this all along, and that only makes that video from Jan Swartz even more insincere and disgusting.

When you were with NCL, did they have an anonymous reporting line you could call that went to an independent shoreside company?

That is what DCL have had for many years and enabled any CM to report anything improper or harassment for example without fear of repercussions.

ex techie

SHAME ON THEM. SHAME!

 

 

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/princess-cruise-lines-pay-largest-ever-criminal-penalty-deliberate-vessel-pollution

 

 

 

Illegal discharges took place on the Caribbean Princess dating back to 2005, one year after the vessel started operations, as part of a conspiracy to violate the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and to obstruct justice.

 

 

 

Different bypass methods were used over the course of time, including a “magic pipe” used to transfer oily waste overboard.

 

 

 

After learning that an engineer had blown the whistle, senior ship engineers dismantled the bypass pipe and instructed crew members to lie.

 

 

 

Prior to the MCA boarding, the chief engineer and senior first engineer ordered crew members to lie. Following the MCA’s inquiry, the chief engineer held a sham meeting in the engine control room to pretend to look into the allegations while holding up a sign stating: “LA is listening.” The engineers present understood that anything said might be heard by those at the company’s headquarters in Los Angeles, California, because the engine control room contained a recording device intended to monitor conversations in the event of an incident.

 

 

 

When using the magic pipe, engineers processed sea water through the oily water separator in order to create a digital record to account for the missing waste.

 

 

 

Shore-side management failed to provide and exercise sufficient supervision and management controls to prevent or detect criminal violations by Caribbean Princess crew members.

 

 

 

A perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of England told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense.

 

 

 

Princess engineers on the Caribbean Princess indicated that the chief engineer responsible for the discharge on Aug. 26, 2013, was known as “broccino corto” (a person with short arms), an Italian expression for a cheap person whose arms are too short to reach his wallet. Some expressed the same opinion of the shore-side superintendent.

 

 

 

Graywater tanks overflowed into the bilges on a routine basis and were pumped back into the graywater system and then improperly discharged overboard when they were required to be treated as oil contaminated bilge waste. The overflows took place when internal floats in the graywater collection tanks got stuck due to large amounts of fat, grease and food particles from the galley that drained into the graywater system. Graywater tanks overflowed at least once a month and, at times, as frequently as once per week. Princess had no written procedures or training for how internal gray water spills were supposed to be cleaned up and the problem remained uncorrected for many years.

 

 

 

Princess discovered “stub pipes” along the entire length of the ship for the apparent purpose of pumping graywater overflows into the bilges back into the graywater system and subsequently overboard.

 

 

 

Rotten from the top down to the core.

 

 

 

ex techie

Well that might explain all of the complaints about the smell of sewage back several years ago. Or actual back ups in cabins. Mostly on the CB.

Chief,

 

I am presuming that shoreside would have records of invoices from vendors that provided the slops barges that would show how frequently they collected the waste, and how much? That would indicate how often the slops were removed properly and I would think there is a "average" number of tons that would be expected per engine running hours?

I agree that corporate were the ones pushing this all along, and that only makes that video from Jan Swartz even more insincere and disgusting.

 

When you were with NCL, did they have an anonymous reporting line you could call that went to an independent shoreside company?

That is what DCL have had for many years and enabled any CM to report anything improper or harassment for example without fear of repercussions.

 

ex techie

Well, here we have to back up a bit for some definitions. There is bilge water, which is basically water with a little oil mixed in. Then there is "waste oil" or "slops" that is basically fuel residues that cannot be burned in the engines or used lubricating oil, that has a little water mixed in. Ships will typically incinerate slops (if set up for it) in their solid waste incinerators, or deliver it to shoreside contractors. Typically, an industry standard is you generate about 1% slops for every ton of fuel burned.

Now, bilge water is rarely delivered to shore facilities, mainly because even though it has less oil in it, it costs more to dispose of, since the mostly oil "slops" is usually resold to industries that can burn it, while bilge water needs to be separated and the water either evaporated or discharged just like a ship does through an oil content meter, and then the small percentage of oil can be sold. So, seeing an invoice for discharging bilge water (which must be invoiced separately from slops as they are two different classes of MARPOL liquids) would be an anomaly, while not seeing any would not.

Most of the violations that I've read about in the last few years involving cargo ships come from "magic pipes" that allow waste oil (98% oil) to be discharged overboard (by law there can not be any connection between a waste oil system and an underwater discharge). What Princess was doing was trying to get around under maintained (or lack of chemicals) in their oil water separators, and to make up for poor bilge management (letting too much oil get into the bilges), and using "magic pipes" and dilution water to put bilge water (99% water) over the side.

I haven't seen the video, but I firmly believe that this does not go above the technical superintendent/fleet manager level, and that even the VP or Director of Technical Operations was not aware of this. He/she does not get into the nuts and bolts of daily operations the way the other two positions I mention do.

Under the ISM code, every shipping company has to have a Designated Person (DP) Ashore, who takes anonymous calls from the vessels about issues that crew feel are not being properly addressed onboard. These DP's are monitored by the class surveyors during the audit of the corporate office for ISM compliance, and any hint of retribution is a serious violation. NCL was one of the companies that I've worked for that was under DOJ probation for oil pollution. The other company that was under probation set up an independent department that reports directly to the CEO regarding environmental compliance. The "hotline" went to this department. NCL did not have an "Internal Affairs" department, but there was a reporting hotline.

Well that might explain all of the complaints about the smell of sewage back several years ago. Or actual back ups in cabins. Mostly on the CB.

Well, not really. Even when a gray water tank would overflow into the engine room, the drains are an open, gravity system, so unless the engine room and all of the crew decks were flooded right up to the ceiling (and the ship did not sink from this), then this would not cause a back up in passenger cabins that are higher up.

Complaints about sewage smell on the outside of the ship are typically from plants that incinerate the solid matter (paper fibers) left over from the waste water treatment plant, along with errant wind and downdrafts.

Complaints about odors inside the ship are typically from traps in the drains (sinks, showers, deck drains) that have dried out from not seeing regular inflow of drain water, and the low humidity AC air. In your cabin, this normally manifests itself in the bathroom, and comes from the bathroom floor drain (not the shower), which is either a gutter at the door, or a drain hidden under the toilet. A glass of water down these drains daily keeps odors away in your cabin.

Actual back ups, will again depend on which system it is, since a ship, unlike your house, has a completely separate system for the toilets, and a separate system for gray water (sinks, showers, deck drains, galleys, and laundries). A toilet back up is caused by someone flushing something not allowed, while a gray water backup can be a simple hair ball clog.

Thanks for all the background on the environmental and pollution issues with Princess. I have always had my doubts regarding Carnival as a corporate entity, although my professional experience is that they don't micro manage each of the cruise lines they own. The only consistent principle is to produce profits, without much regard to quality. This has created inconsistent experiences across their fleets. Personally, we had weighed whether to cruise on DCL vs Princess, but in light of what I have read in this group of posts, it does appear the corporate culture at Carnival/Princess is not good. I have high confidence in DCL and their commitment to quality (AND profits!).

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Well, here we have to back up a bit for some definitions. There is bilge water, which is basically water with a little oil mixed in. Then there is "waste oil" or "slops" that is basically fuel residues that cannot be burned in the engines or used lubricating oil, that has a little water mixed in. Ships will typically incinerate slops (if set up for it) in their solid waste incinerators, or deliver it to shoreside contractors. Typically, an industry standard is you generate about 1% slops for every ton of fuel burned.

 

Now, bilge water is rarely delivered to shore facilities, mainly because even though it has less oil in it, it costs more to dispose of, since the mostly oil "slops" is usually resold to industries that can burn it, while bilge water needs to be separated and the water either evaporated or discharged just like a ship does through an oil content meter, and then the small percentage of oil can be sold. So, seeing an invoice for discharging bilge water (which must be invoiced separately from slops as they are two different classes of MARPOL liquids) would be an anomaly, while not seeing any would not.

 

Most of the violations that I've read about in the last few years involving cargo ships come from "magic pipes" that allow waste oil (98% oil) to be discharged overboard (by law there can not be any connection between a waste oil system and an underwater discharge). What Princess was doing was trying to get around under maintained (or lack of chemicals) in their oil water separators, and to make up for poor bilge management (letting too much oil get into the bilges), and using "magic pipes" and dilution water to put bilge water (99% water) over the side.

 

I haven't seen the video, but I firmly believe that this does not go above the technical superintendent/fleet manager level, and that even the VP or Director of Technical Operations was not aware of this. He/she does not get into the nuts and bolts of daily operations the way the other two positions I mention do.

 

Under the ISM code, every shipping company has to have a Designated Person (DP) Ashore, who takes anonymous calls from the vessels about issues that crew feel are not being properly addressed onboard. These DP's are monitored by the class surveyors during the audit of the corporate office for ISM compliance, and any hint of retribution is a serious violation. NCL was one of the companies that I've worked for that was under DOJ probation for oil pollution. The other company that was under probation set up an independent department that reports directly to the CEO regarding environmental compliance. The "hotline" went to this department. NCL did not have an "Internal Affairs" department, but there was a reporting hotline.

Thanks for the explanation Chief.

So basically, anyone of the engineers that saw or knew about the illegal and improper practices taking place across 5 vessels *could* have anonymously reported this from 2005-2013 and maybe stopped it, but it took a new hire to blow the whistle.

Maybe he came from another line that had been caught before, or maybe his principles and morals were higher than his co-workers aboard and previous.

Knowing that anyone could have reported this without retribution just makes it all the more worse.

I noticed someone posted a link to cruisejunkie and a list of environmental contamination incidents on the Princess board thread.

And I was relieved to not see DCL on the list from 1998-2013. Go DCL!

ex techie

Thanks for all the background on the environmental and pollution issues with Princess. I have always had my doubts regarding Carnival as a corporate entity, although my professional experience is that they don't micro manage each of the cruise lines they own. The only consistent principle is to produce profits, without much regard to quality. This has created inconsistent experiences across their fleets. Personally, we had weighed whether to cruise on DCL vs Princess, but in light of what I have read in this group of posts, it does appear the corporate culture at Carnival/Princess is not good. I have high confidence in DCL and their commitment to quality (AND profits!).

+1!

ex techie

We cruised Princess twice based on both price and the fact that "Disney doesn't do Asia." After the news report and the above discussions, I can pretty much say that we won't be doing them again...or at least for a long, long time. And that's sad because they do offer cruises that other lines don't.

Do I think they will clean up at least some of their corrupt practices--yes. But it seems "too little, too late" and only because they were forced to. Much better to be DCL, taking their commitment to the environment seriously because it is the right thing to do.

We cruised Princess twice based on both price and the fact that "Disney doesn't do Asia." After the news report and the above discussions' date=' I can pretty much say that we won't be doing them again...or at least for a long, long time. And that's sad because they do offer cruises that other lines don't.

 

 

 

Do I think they will clean up at least some of their corrupt practices--yes. But it seems "too little, too late" and only because they were forced to. Much better to be DCL, taking their commitment to the environment seriously because it is the right thing to do.[/quote']

 

 

 

IMO this is a little bit of an over reaction. While I'm disappointed in what happened over at Princess, and do not condone it whatsoever it was 1 ship in an entire fleet that had this issue. If you think that any for profit company, including Disney, doesn't push their staff to reduce costs as much as possible than you're wrong. It is then up to individual people as to how the respond to that type of work environment and I guarantee you every company has people that will bend or break rules or laws in those circumstances. They are rare and are the exception to the rule, and will eventually be caught, but it happens even to Disney.

 

So skipping an entire line for actions of a small group seems a little unfair, otherwise you may not use any cruise line or for-profit company out there.

 

Again, just my thoughts, and at the end of the day you need to do what you believe to be best.

I appreciate your comments, and yes, it is likely a bit of an over-reaction and I may feel different in a year or two. For now, Princess is off our radar.

My reading said the while the initial report was the Caribbean Princess, the inspectors found issues with five ships in the Princess fleet. Sorry, didn't save that citation, and not worth searching for it again. Again, that's not a huge number based on the size of the fleet.

I do feel that this issue will not be repeated and other "cheats" are not likely to happen given the severity of the warning about another infraction (10 times the current penalty = $400 million).