Princesss fined $40 million for pollution

[JimmyVWine]

Does anyone know how complicated this "magic pipe" system/device was? Surely, it was more than just a pipe.

 

How does an employee/department go about getting purchase approval for a "magic pipe"? :)

 

I don't know the answers to your questions. But every time I see term "magic pipe", I can't help but think of a Grateful Dead concert.

[greenie082756]

As always, I appreciate your insights and expertise on the internals of modern day shipping and cruising. Some may see your posts as speculation but their viewpoint may just be from a different and possibly valid angle or maybe simply uninformed.

 

On the subject of company morale, it's interesting that there have been a few posts on this thread from Princess guests cruising within the past week who have noted a very subdued and less enthusiastic attitude on the part of the Princess guest-facing ship crew. Maybe those guest's perceptions were colored by the news yesterday or maybe it was a real reaction by the crew to the announcement of a settlement with DOJ.

 

As far as the staff being less than normal. I agree. On our October cruise we noticed the staff was less jubilant and less in general. I stated so on the company review emailed to me. Seemed less personnel and the ones working seemed stressed or blasé.

[JimmyVWine]

As far as the staff being less than normal. I agree. On our October cruise we noticed the staff was less jubilant and less in general. I stated so on the company review emailed to me. Seemed less personnel and the ones working seemed stressed or blasé.

 

But the probability of the the crew's malaise being caused by concern over high level negotiations between corporate HQ and the DOJ concerning fines, penalties, consent decrees and guilty pleas is next to zero. I can't imagine how a cruise in October could have been impacted by confidential negotiations taking place within the legal department.

[Putterdude]

Clearly Princess got caught with there pants down and what they did is certainly unfortunate. However, those of us who have sailed for years know what went over the side. The strides that the marine industry has made to protect the environment in recent decades has been remarkable, one only has to see the piles of recyclable materials that are off loaded at the end of a cruise to witness that fact. Personally I am glad they got caught, they have been made an example of, will make restitution and I for one am not going stop cruising or condemn Princess. I am sure this is not going to happen again in the CCL fleets.

[Charles4515]

That wasn't really my point. The question is, are you (or anyone else who claims to be swearing off future Princess cruises) prepared to boycott every company that has been found to be environmentally non-compliant over the past 20 years? I'm simply asking if people are prepared to shed their hypocrisy. Because if you drive a car, buy a lead battery, wear jewelry with precious metals, use electricity, buy gasoline, use products that contain glass, use products that contain metal, you are supporting companies that have at one time or another, polluted the environment, and in most cases, knowingly and wilfully. None of this exonerate Princess. But let's not focus all of our outrage on this one company.

 

 

 

I am not boycotting Princess cruises but I will hold off booking with them for a while. I am unhappy customer. I don't see why people are objecting to customers showing their displeasure by booking with someone else in the aftermath. They should lose some business. There should be repercussions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited December 3, 2016 by Charles4515

[JimmyVWine]

I am not boycotting Princess cruises but I will hold off booking with them for a while. I don't see why people are objecting to customers showing their displeasure by booking with someone else in the aftermath. They should lose some business.

I'm not "objecting" to anyone who refuses to give Princess future business. But if one wants to do that and not act hypocritically, said person should not book with any other cruise line that has committed environmental violations, should stop using their computer, should take off their wedding ring or any other precious metal jewelry, should stop buying any product made with metal, glass or plastic, and on and on. If environmental violations are going to be met with outrage, fine. But be consistent in that outrage. Much of what I am seeing here smacks of: "I'm mad as heck at BP for what happened in the Gulf. So now I am taking my business to Exxon", ignoring what happened in Valdez.

[Steelers0854]

Very likely not. You have to realize that the cruise industry is a very small portion of the maritime industry, and only accounts for a small percentage of the officer billets available worldwide. Cruise ship officer billets also tend to pay less than similar billets on cargo ships, the cruise ship officers preferring the lifestyle on the cruise ships so they put up with less pay. Also, due to the international nature of the industry, many flag states will recognize licenses issued by other countries, so this person can look for jobs on ships under other flags. There will also typically be union representation, with clauses against discrimination. From my experience, this will not hurt this person's career in the slightest.

 

 

 

So glad to hear this. It takes a lot of courage in cases like this to stand up and do the right thing.

[Charles4515]

I'm not "objecting" to anyone who refuses to give Princess future business. But if one wants to do that and not act hypocritically, said person should not book with any other cruise line that has committed environmental violations, should stop using their computer, should take off their wedding ring or any other precious metal jewelry, should stop buying any product made with metal, glass or plastic, and on and on. If environmental violations are going to be met with outrage, fine. But be consistent in that outrage. Much of what I am seeing here smacks of: "I'm mad as heck at BP for what happened in the Gulf. So now I am taking my business to Exxon", ignoring what happened in Valdez.

 

 

 

My outrage is at a specific event of malfeasance. Not hypothetical malfeasance.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thinfool]

Does anyone know how complicated this "magic pipe" system/device was? Surely, it was more than just a pipe.

 

How does an employee/department go about getting purchase approval for a "magic pipe"? :)

 

 

Petty cash.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Aquahound]

I'm not "objecting" to anyone who refuses to give Princess future business. But if one wants to do that and not act hypocritically, said person should not book with any other cruise line that has committed environmental violations...

 

The person you quoted has already stated that they did temporarily boycott another line for the same reason. I don't see anything hypocritical in their post.

[msmoger]

I don't know the answers to your questions. But every time I see term "magic pipe", I can't help but think of a Grateful Dead concert.

 

Haha.....What a long, strange trip it’s been

[cruisemom42]

My outrage is at a specific event of malfeasance. Not hypothetical malfeasance.

 

 

The person you quoted has already stated that they did temporarily boycott another line for the same reason. I don't see anything hypocritical in their post.

 

I agree. People seem to be infected with a strange malaise these days. This idea that one is being hypocritical if one doesn't actively react to every single example of corporate/environmental evil..... If that is the case, then no one can ever object to anything -- is that what we are reduced to?

[chengkp75]

Does anyone know how complicated this "magic pipe" system/device was? Surely, it was more than just a pipe.

 

How does an employee/department go about getting purchase approval for a "magic pipe"? :)

 

They are called "magic pipes" because they "magically make bilge water "disappear".

 

Cruise ships will all have pipe fitters and welders onboard to do repairs, so the magic pipe is fabricated onboard. It is a fairly easy process to disconnect a pipe in two systems (like gray water and bilge water), and make a pipe or hose that can be used to connect the two, and removed when not in use. Or to introduce additional water to the sample line to fool the oil content meter. One of the aspects of the environmental compliance plan that the DOJ will insist on is a system of "enviro tags". These tags, all with individual serial numbers, will be placed so that any section of pipe that could be removed to allow installation of a magic pipe would require breaking the seals. These seals have to be documented, and signed over at each change of Chief Engineer, any time a seal is broken (accidentally, in an emergency, for a repair, or during shipyard), the corporate office needs to be notified with the seal removed and the seal installed. The Captain has a supply of new seals in his safe, and he keeps an inventory by seal number, and when a seal is issued to the Chief it is logged out in his inventory and the corporate office is notified. So, the office is notified twice whenever a new seal is installed. Old, broken tags are maintained by the Captain, and returned to corporate officers when they visit the ship. 3rd party auditors will inspect each and every seal, along with the Chief's inventory list, the Captain's inventory list, the e-mail trail at both ship and corporate, and the corporate inventory list.

[Renmar]

They are called "magic pipes" because they "magically make bilge water "disappear".

 

Cruise ships will all have pipe fitters and welders onboard to do repairs, so the magic pipe is fabricated onboard. It is a fairly easy process to disconnect a pipe in two systems (like gray water and bilge water), and make a pipe or hose that can be used to connect the two, and removed when not in use. Or to introduce additional water to the sample line to fool the oil content meter. One of the aspects of the environmental compliance plan that the DOJ will insist on is a system of "enviro tags". These tags, all with individual serial numbers, will be placed so that any section of pipe that could be removed to allow installation of a magic pipe would require breaking the seals. These seals have to be documented, and signed over at each change of Chief Engineer, any time a seal is broken (accidentally, in an emergency, for a repair, or during shipyard), the corporate office needs to be notified with the seal removed and the seal installed. The Captain has a supply of new seals in his safe, and he keeps an inventory by seal number, and when a seal is issued to the Chief it is logged out in his inventory and the corporate office is notified. So, the office is notified twice whenever a new seal is installed. Old, broken tags are maintained by the Captain, and returned to corporate officers when they visit the ship. 3rd party auditors will inspect each and every seal, along with the Chief's inventory list, the Captain's inventory list, the e-mail trail at both ship and corporate, and the corporate inventory list.

 

Do you know if this is a proposed process or is this process already in place?

 

Theo

[chengkp75]

Do you know if this is a proposed process or is this process already in place?

 

Theo

 

A company I've worked for was under DOJ probation for similar violations, and our environmental compliance program was accepted by the DOJ as the gold standard, and is what they have mandated for all settlements since 2006. So, Princess would have been informed by DOJ of the terms of any settlement, so whether they have started implementing the compliance plan or were waiting for the verdict, I can't say, but this is what all Carnival Corp ships will have to comply with for the next 5 years, and typically it becomes a standing part of the ISM code for the company and will be policy from here forward.

[Renmar]

A company I've worked for was under DOJ probation for similar violations, and our environmental compliance program was accepted by the DOJ as the gold standard, and is what they have mandated for all settlements since 2006. So, Princess would have been informed by DOJ of the terms of any settlement, so whether they have started implementing the compliance plan or were waiting for the verdict, I can't say, but this is what all Carnival Corp ships will have to comply with for the next 5 years, and typically it becomes a standing part of the ISM code for the company and will be policy from here forward.

 

Interesting. Thanks for explaining, the future will tell if the industry complies.

 

Theo

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

Just noticed this in the small print,

 

The plea agreement and penalty must be approved by a Miami federal judge. If it is, $14m will be earmarked for environmental projects in Florida, Britain and in international open waters.

 

Hope Princess PR guys do not use this for spin in years to come to say how much good things they do.

 

yours Shogun

[sfaaa]

I agree. People seem to be infected with a strange malaise these days. This idea that one is being hypocritical if one doesn't actively react to every single example of corporate/environmental evil..... If that is the case, then no one can ever object to anything -- is that what we are reduced to?

 

The term cherry picking comes to mind.

[thinfool]

For the legal part, when does the 5 year period start?

 

When the judge signs off and the first inspection is certified?

 

Do all the ships have to be inspected/certified before the 5 years can begin?

 

I can see a nice, healthy financial burden on Carnival in record keeping over this, in addition to actually having to pay for proper disposal of waste.

 

It would be interesting to know how many of the new ships can incinerate the waste correctly vs. the older ships that cannot.

[chengkp75]

For the legal part, when does the 5 year period start?

 

When the judge signs off and the first inspection is certified?

 

Do all the ships have to be inspected/certified before the 5 years can begin?

 

I can see a nice, healthy financial burden on Carnival in record keeping over this, in addition to actually having to pay for proper disposal of waste.

 

It would be interesting to know how many of the new ships can incinerate the waste correctly vs. the older ships that cannot.

 

Until the judge accepts the agreement, nothing is legally binding, so the probation period begins with the judge accepting the agreement.

 

No, if Princess has not already started implementing the process, they will when the agreement is signed. The ships will have a good faith time to implement the policies and practices, which will also include seminars and such, so it is a time consuming process. The court appointed auditor will however, be monitoring the ships and the company to ensure progress is being made in a timely fashion.

 

I don't know if I clarified this on this thread or not, but what was discharged overboard illegally is not what is typically incinerated or pumped ashore for disposal.

 

Bilge water is any water that has accumulated in the engine room bilges, whether oily or not (there are some compartments in the engine room where drain water accumulates, but there is no equipment that uses oil in there, so this bilge water is perfectly clean), and given most cruise lines' bilge management practices, this water will be over 90% water. This is what is treated in the oil water separator, and if it has an oil content of less than 15ppm (99.9985% water) before it can be pumped overboard. Typically, unless the oil water separator is not functioning properly, or there is a large water leak in the engine room, a ship can go years without ever pumping bilge water ashore.

 

Waste oil or slops is fuel residue that cannot be burned in the engines, or used lubricating oil, and this is collected in a different system than bilge water, as this is 98% oil. This is what is typically disposed of to shore contractors for reprocessing and resale. Some ships, and age does not really enter into this, have the facility to incinerate the waste oil. Some have combined waste oil/solid waste incinerators. Some companies decide it isn't worth the effort or cost to incinerate, so they dispose of it ashore.

 

What Princess pumped overboard illegally was bilge water that exceeded the 15ppm limit the oil content meter allows, but we don't know how oily the water was, maybe only 20ppm, which would not register as different from a legal discharge to the naked eye, or in its environmental impact. Princess also took gray water that had overflowed into the engine room (at which point it is no longer gray water, but bilge water), and pumped it back into gray water tanks for discharge through the ship's waste water treatment plant. The only oil this would have in it is what was picked up while in the engine room bilges.

[RocketMan275]

I am detecting a lot of, what appears to be, selective outrage in this thread. I wonder how many people would have the courage of their convictions when it comes to everyday purchases if they knew the kind of pollution that is created by the production of these items. I especially would question their willingness to purchase anything made or partially made in China given the Chinese military's destruction of many coral reefs in the South China Sea by building bases on top of them. This is all in addition to the comment earlier about the pollution from the cargo ships hauling said goods.

 

Before anyone says I am advocating giving Princess a pass on their transgression, I am not. I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of pollution and environment destructive activities going on in the world other than cruising which we passively condone by our lifestyle.

 

The 'selective outrage' is coming from passengers who fly to the ports on aircraft spewing pollution into the atmosphere to board a cruise ship that burns thousands of tons of fuel oil. The one who truly wants to make a statement about pollution should vacation in a tent in their backyard while brewing tea made from twigs and leaves on their zero emission solar stove.

[RDC1]

The 'selective outrage' is coming from passengers who fly to the ports on aircraft spewing pollution into the atmosphere to board a cruise ship that burns thousands of tons of fuel oil. The one who truly wants to make a statement about pollution should vacation in a tent in their backyard while brewing tea made from twigs and leaves on their zero emission solar stove.

 

There is a considerable difference between emissions that are reasonable for the task being performed and excessive emission, especially those that can be managed and are not, or those where the legal limit is easily obtained, and a company chooses to violate the law.

 

Using your example of passenger flying. Flying on a modern commercial aircraft requires about 2,033 BTU per passenger mile, compared to 4,211 BTU for an average automobile. While there is some impact from contrails and high altitude delivery of pollutants, the impact of flight is not any more than driving. The rest of your logic is just about as accurate, as in not.

 

The argument trying to equate a reasonable level of pollution coming from normal use of modern technology, to clear violations of the law where cost effective technology and procedures exist is clearly false.

Edited December 3, 2016 by RDC1

[buggins0402]

The 'selective outrage' is coming from passengers who fly to the ports on aircraft spewing pollution into the atmosphere to board a cruise ship that burns thousands of tons of fuel oil. The one who truly wants to make a statement about pollution should vacation in a tent in their backyard while brewing tea made from twigs and leaves on their zero emission solar stove.

 

You don't see the difference between deliberately causing environmental harm when there are alternatives and the general use of fossil fuels?

[Skai]

I don't care what anyone else does, but I booked another cruise to Hawaii on Princess. There's companies that I boycott but it's more for political reasons than a cruise line getting caught dumping in the ocean. Plenty of water polluting going on like in Flint, MI that has done far more damage to people than what Princess has done. Been to any beaches in the Los Angeles area? Some of the beaches are routinely closed due to raw sewage being dumped into the ocean and contaminating the water. Furthermore, let's not get started on the pools being polluted on board the ship due to people peeing in the pools and hot tubs, babies pooping in their diapers in the pool, and oh yeah that nasty noro virus that gets passed around due to someone's polluted hands not being washed after using the toilet. Did anyone get sick from the Caribbean Princess dump? Lots of finger pointing going on.

 

/just saying

 

Interesting rationalization.

 

One ought to agree that laws regulating pollution are a waste of time because there will always be pollution.

 

What Princess has done here needs to be minimalized. Who really cares if they were dishonest and unethical? It ought to be swiflty dismissed, as one can be assured that is not how they publicly represent their declared values. There are a lot more dishonest and unethical situations that exist in the world.

 

Princess ought to be considered trustworthy despite this insignificant lapse in judgment.

 

just saying

[SteelMagnolia9]

You don't see the difference between deliberately causing environmental harm when there are alternatives and the general use of fossil fuels?

 

Yes, particularly when a corporation is charged with and pleads to seven felonies.

 

You may want to just scroll by a few posters comments on this thread. Corporations tend to have individuals on social media sites who will respond to other posters in the aftermath of negative events-they are sometimes paid, sometimes provided with in-kind benefits. Sometimes you can pick them out, sometimes not. Corporations place these individuals on all sorts of platforms. You'll usually find them repeating the same post or thought over and over again, sometimes using name-calling, to sway others from a negative perception of the business or to quiet them from commenting further (usually with the name-calling).

 

There are others that just want to provoke someone into an emotional response as they are sitting behind their keyboard.

 

Whether or not an individual chooses to continue to cruise with Princess after reflecting on the recent news is a personal decision. I think everyone can respect that.