Record-breaking fine for Princess

[njaloha]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/01/princess-cruises-to-pay-record-breaking-criminal-fine-for-ocean-pollution/?utm_term=.2b3ed3da4727&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

 

On December 1, the Washington Post published an article about the $40 Million fine Princess will pay for the 8 years of ocean polluting practices on board the Caribbean Princess and 4 other ships covered up by senior engineering officers!

 

This is horrible and disgusting and why many people refuse to cruise with big ship companies like Carnival. :mad:

 

This went on for 8 years before an engineer on board the Caribbean princess reported the practice to authorities and then quit his job. :mad::mad: But I wonder...how could something like this happen without ANYBODY in upper management knowing. The ship is an island? No overwatch from corporate?

 

With all the technology and clean ocean talks and placards all over the ship, I have to believe that Celebrity (RCCL) means what it says and that it truly cares about our environment. Clearly, I have no idea how Celebrity runs its business but one would think that cruise companies across the board would benefit from heavier internal investigation.

 

Here's the question: Would you boycott a cruise line because of this? I know I would because this is serious stuff.

[WestLakeGirl]

check your history book. Royal Caribbean was levied the largest fine in history g at that time) for ocean dump go and that's part of the reason they don't go Into to Glacier Bay

[ECCruise]

check your history book. Royal Caribbean was levied the largest fine in history g at that time) for ocean dump go and that's part of the reason they don't go Into to Glacier Bay

 

You beat me to the punch.

RCCL was guilty of this--and a coverup--long before Carnival/Princess.

 

So those who want to boycott have, I guess the NCL/Oceania/Regent group and a couple small operators. If they, too, are not doing the same.

[njaloha]

Awwwgh no. Thank you for setting me straight.

 

I just read an article from 1999 about RCCL. Almost identical illegal practices as the Princess debacle. Dummy logs called "fairy tales", bypass pipes, etc. Here's hoping after five years of probation and millions and millions of dollars in fines, they've learned their lesson???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 3, 2016 by njaloha
+info

[nealstuber]

It appears that the only reason anybody ever found out about this is that someone inside the ship told authorities. Over the course of 5 years, no detectable harm was done to the oceans or environment.

 

I'm not saying this makes it right, maybe there would be a discernible impact if everybody did it, and the law is the law and companies are obligated to comply.

 

But it does raise the question: are some of these costly regulations more aggressive than they need to be?

 

Nothing "disgusting" was ever created as a result of these practices, so a $40m fine which will ultimately be borne by future cruisers on all Carnival Brands seems rather steep given that no detectable harm was done. Given that no clean-up is necessary, what will the money be used for?

 

I for one will not be boycotting.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited December 3, 2016 by nealstuber

[fshagan]

I wonder if Princess will lose their contract to go into Glacier Bay and open up slots for RCCL to go back in? Isn't there a regulation that a National Park contractor cannot be convicted of a felony?

[warmwinds]

I actually remember watching that RCCL video taking by someone who saw what they were doing - throwing bag after bag after garbage bag overboard in the dead of night. I believe it was a passenger on a deck above who saw them and filmed the whole thing.

[RDC1]

I wonder if Princess will lose their contract to go into Glacier Bay and open up slots for RCCL to go back in? Isn't there a regulation that a National Park contractor cannot be convicted of a felony?

 

The regulation has changed recently and such exclusion is not automatic.

 

I posted the applicable regulation in an earlier stream. Here is what I posted there

 

I just checked the FAR. It was recently updated. The current language is now:

 

(a) As required by sections 744 and 745 of Division E of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L 113-235), and similar provisions, if contained in subsequent appropriations acts, the Government will not enter into a contract with any corporation that--

 

(1) Has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that suspension or debarment is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government; or

 

(2) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and made a determination that this action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

 

They recently added the tax liability exclusion, at they same time it appears they weakened the Felony language in such a way that a department no longer must automatically suspend or debar a contractor, but instead can determine if there is any threat to the governments interests. Weaker language then when Royal went through this.

Edited December 4, 2016 by RDC1

[DYKWIA]

I thought Princess ships had environmental officers on board (they featured on a UK TV show looking at Regal Princess IIRC) to specifically monitor and ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen

Edited December 4, 2016 by DYKWIA

[fshagan]

They recently added the tax liability exclusion, at they same time it appears they weakened the Felony language in such a way that a department no longer must automatically suspend or debar a contractor, but instead can determine if there is any threat to the governments interests. Weaker language then when Royal went through this.

 

Thanks for the wording of the regulation! It helps to see the actual language even if I'm not an expert in interpreting it. It doesn't seem to mandate a change to their status as a contractor.

[DYKWIA]

. I said in my original post that I thought a $40 million dollar fine might be inappropriate for an infraction that hurt no one and no animals. That does not mean I want to kill all the fish in the sea.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I can assure you that any sewage discharge WILL have an impact on the aquatic environment including vertebrates and invertebrates in the immediate locality. Just because no one found a dead fish doesn't mean a lot.

[RDC1]

Thanks for the wording of the regulation! It helps to see the actual language even if I'm not an expert in interpreting it. It doesn't seem to mandate a change to their status as a contractor.

 

It does impact new contracts, but the NPS can waive the restriction.

[DirtyDawg]

I guess Princess' management didn't read The U.S. Government's Cruise Contract! ;)

[Host Walt]

This thread has been closed as a consequence of a large number of off topic posts, mostly political in nature, that are in contravention of Cruise Critic posting guidelines and, therefore, had to be removed.