Princess Fine to be 40 Million

[perditax]

Also just wondering what happened to the officers directly involved . I'm also not sure if this was confined to one ship and why they did this . What was their motivation ?

 

Given the egregiousness, it seems unlikely the motive was anything other than cost-cutting. chengpk75 pretty much spells it out.

[BabsinTX]

Some of us are more interested in damage to wildlife, the sea and the environment by Princess Cruises action rather than what happens to stocks and shares.

 

Seeing this on Earth Day is very depressing.

[satxdiver]

First the 2016 gross income for parent Carnival Corp was $5.27 billion dollars. The $40 million settlement was pocket change to them.

 

Second the damage to their brand in this current political climate will be minimal. All they now have to do is give a nice contribution to our president and all will be forgiven assuming the current EPA director Pruitt even pays any attention to the verdict. As an environmentalist, all I can now do is shed tears and work for a better tomorrow.

[richstowe]

First the 2016 gross income for parent Carnival Corp was $5.27 billion dollars. The $40 million settlement was pocket change to them.

 

Second the damage to their brand in this current political climate will be minimal. All they now have to do is give a nice contribution to our president and all will be forgiven assuming the current EPA director Pruitt even pays any attention to the verdict. As an environmentalist, all I can now do is shed tears and work for a better tomorrow.

We can and should do our best to minimize our environmental footprint but I believe environmentalism and cruising are mutually exclusive .

[satxdiver]

We can and should do our best to minimize our environmental footprint but I believe environmentalism and cruising are mutually exclusive .

 

Protecting the environment and living on our planet is not mutually exclusive. We have nowhere else to go if we pollute our planet to the point it is no longer liveable.

[perditax]

We can and should do our best to minimize our environmental footprint but I believe environmentalism and cruising are mutually exclusive .

 

There's more than one reason I'm ethically conflicted about this newish hobby of mine. :/

 

Are smaller ships any better? Sincere question.

[perditax]

Protecting the environment and living on our planet is not mutually exclusive. We have nowhere else to go if we pollute our planet to the point it is no longer liveable.

 

While I think you misread the previous post (unless he meant to say NOT mutually exclusive), I agree. Unfortunately most people don't think much further than the next thing that will give them an endorphin boost.

 

(Devil's advocate ... I work with a lot of 30-somethings and enough of them take their recycling and vegetarianism and resistance to conspicuous consumerism seriously enough to put me to shame. And I don't mean hipster types, I mean everyday folks with jobs and kids or their own. They would never get on a cruise ship; they do Europe via airbnb and such. So maybe there is hope. Now, if we can only convince people to stop having six kids each, because that math is going end us.)

[Bill B]

Think about this -

While the air pollution produced by a cruise ship is horrendous, it's only part on the problem. Cruise ships may represent less than 5% of the world's total shipping; but consider how many people those ships carry:

Average commercial ship = 25 (I'm guessing and it's probably closer to 20)

Average cruise ship = 3500 (I'm guessing... but Royal Princess = 4906)

This means your average cruise ship produces 140 times as much sewage as your average commercial ship. Where does it go? The EPA estimates a 3000-person cruise ship dumps 150,000 gallons of sewage into the ocean per week. U.S. federal law prohibits dumping within 12 nautical miles of the coast; however, beyond that it's a 'free for all'. Even if the sewage is treated, it contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that feed algal blooms - stripping oxygen from the water killing fish, shellfish and corals... and disrupting the entire ocean ecosystem.

[sfaaa]

.

 

Second the damage to their brand in this current political climate will be minimal. All they now have to do is give a nice contribution to our president and all will be forgiven assuming the current EPA director Pruitt even pays any attention to the verdict. As an environmentalist, all I can now do is shed tears and work for a better tomorrow.

 

Besides shedding tears, are you going to boycott Princess/Carnival as a result of this? If not, why not?

[GUT2407]

the ship is not a US ship, and even Carnival Corp is not a US corporation, so those US consumer protection laws don't necessarily apply.

 

 

 

Yet on other threads we'll be told we should do things the American way, because it's an American ship owned by an American company.

[chengkp75]

Think about this -

While the air pollution produced by a cruise ship is horrendous, it's only part on the problem. Cruise ships may represent less than 5% of the world's total shipping; but consider how many people those ships carry:

Average commercial ship = 25 (I'm guessing and it's probably closer to 20)

Average cruise ship = 3500 (I'm guessing... but Royal Princess = 4906)

This means your average cruise ship produces 140 times as much sewage as your average commercial ship. Where does it go? The EPA estimates a 3000-person cruise ship dumps 150,000 gallons of sewage into the ocean per week. U.S. federal law prohibits dumping within 12 nautical miles of the coast; however, beyond that it's a 'free for all'. Even if the sewage is treated, it contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that feed algal blooms - stripping oxygen from the water killing fish, shellfish and corals... and disrupting the entire ocean ecosystem.

 

I'm not sure what the EPA is using as their determination of what constitutes "sewage", but I can tell you that a 3000 person cruise ship discharges around 250,000 gallons of waste water per day. This is black water and gray water, as is sent from your home to your septic system or municipal sewer system.

 

Nearly every ship above 500 GT will have a sewage treatment plant onboard that meets international regulations as to quality of effluent, including nitrogen and phosphorus contents. Even ocean tugs have these plants, and only very old ships and small boats use the holding tanks that are allowed to dump untreated sewage while outside 12 miles. Personally, I think there is more threat to corals and fish from pleasure boats that are required to have holding tanks and pump out ashore, but where many boaters just pump their tanks at sea, than from cargo or cruise ships.

 

For cruise ships, most have what is referred to as "advanced waste water treatment systems", which will process every drop of water used onboard (black water from the toilets, gray water from the sinks and showers, laundry water, and galley water) to near pure drinking quality fresh water. I have worked with these systems onboard cruise ships, and typically the effluent is tested by third party water quality testing labs every 2-4 weeks to determine the quality of the effluent being discharged. The solids removed from the waste water (primarily paper fibers since the system does not have time to break these fibers down) is incinerated.

 

To imply that cruise ships dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the ocean is simply not true.

 

And, the federal law you mention, which is actually an international law, does indeed prohibit dumping of untreated sewage within 12 miles, but treated sewage is allowed to be discharged by every ship afloat while in harbor, tied to a dock, in nearly every part of the US.

[SantaFeFan]

Yet on other threads we'll be told we should do things the American way, because it's an American ship owned by an American company.

 

Try to stay on topic, OK? This isn't a thread about gratuities. :rolleyes:

[GUT2407]

Try to stay on topic, OK? This isn't a thread about gratuities. :rolleyes:

Who mentioned gratuities?

[Bill B]

chengkp75,

 

I believe you. However, while cruise ships may have Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems, does it not take time and energy i.e. cost money, to run the systems?

 

I may be wrong, but -

Cruise lines have (naturally) been less than transparent in all aspects of any nefarious on board practices. I think it's safe to assume any 'dumping' violations brought to light represent only a tiny fraction of those that occur. If they'll 'dump' oil to save money, are they not even more likely to 'dump' untreated black water? (it's more difficult to detect)

[chengkp75]

chengkp75,

 

I believe you. However, while cruise ships may have Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems, does it not take time and energy i.e. cost money, to run the systems?

 

I may be wrong, but -

Cruise lines have (naturally) been less than transparent in all aspects of any nefarious on board practices. I think it's safe to assume any 'dumping' violations brought to light represent only a tiny fraction of those that occur. If they'll 'dump' oil to save money, are they not even more likely to 'dump' untreated black water? (it's more difficult to detect)

 

I would categorize the cruise industry as shining stars when it comes to environmental compliance, compared to the maritime industry as a whole. In trade journals, you will find a conviction for pollution from a cargo ship nearly every other month, while it's been a while since I've seen one for a cruise line. Their compliance may not be completely altruistic, rather because everyone has a cell phone with a camera these days, and everyone knows they can get a reward for reporting violations, and therefore there are a whole lot more cameras on a cruise (and the passengers aren't depending on the ship for their livelihood) hence more possibility of reporting.

 

Yes, it takes time and money to run an AWWTS, but it is less costly than having to design systems to hold effluent in port, since ships will use 1000-2000 tons of water per day, or have to leave ports early due to insufficient holding capacity (particularly on overnight stays).

 

One of the economic factors favoring environmental compliance is the mutual nature of P&I insurance (property and indemnity), which covers damages to third parties (the environment, nations, other ships, passengers). With a mutual insurance "club" (as P&I companies are called), the members set the premiums based on the historical cost of insurance payments by the members (the ship owners). So, companies who get fined for violations, etc, will raise the payments, and rather than raising premiums, the club members can ask that the offending member leave the club and find a new one, which will be a "lower tier" club, with concurrently higher premiums.

 

As for transparency, does any company that does illegal activity advertise it? Does any company that is convicted of something like this advertise the details, other than what is presented in open court? I have to disagree with you that what is brought to light is a minority of occurrences, especially with regards to cruise lines.

 

As to the ease in dumping untreated sewage, particularly with an AWWTS, the throughput is logged, often at the manufacturer's home plant via remote log in as well, and these records are available for port state control officers to inspect and if there is a sudden drop off of throughput to the system, it must be documented and explained.

 

As to this being oily water, I don't remember all of the facts of the case, and I'm not going to review the statements from last year, or the threads from that time, but if I recall correctly the largest violation was because a gray water tank had overflowed to the engine room bilges. At this point, this no longer becomes "waste water", but becomes "bilge water" and must be handled in a different method, and using a system that has a vastly smaller capacity than the AWWTS. What the Chief did was to pipe this gray water back to a gray water tank and consider it to be gray water to be handled by the AWWTS. Now, regardless of whether there was any oil at all introduced into this gray water, it is a violation since the classification of the liquid changed, regardless of whether the make-up of the liquid changed or not. So, to say that "oily water" was pumped overboard illegally is legally and technically correct, and the practice itself is illegal, whether any pollution actually occurred is debatable. Especially in light of the fact that all ships are allowed to pump oil overboard from their bilge water, the requirement being that it must be less than 15ppm of oil in the water. This is the alarm point where the bilge water Oil Water Separator will stop processing bilge water over the side, and start recirculating it to the tank. Unfortunately, the systems have a capacity of about 120 tons of water per day, compared to the AWWTS capacity of thousands of tons per day. Also, the oil content meter, which determines when oil is present at 15ppm use a light refractive measuring device, which will record paint chips, rust, coffee grounds or human hair as "oil" and start the reject cycle.

 

Again, what Princess did was wrong, what the Chief Engineer did was wrong, but the "root cause" is corporate mind set, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the article at the top of this thread, and those people have been fired from Princess, and the corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations, are all now felons.

[pablo222]

Second the damage to their brand in this current political climate will be minimal.

 

When the violation was first announced here a few months ago...

It was discussed for a few days, maybe a week.

We were then able to get back to important issues like butter...

[ontheweb]

As for "whistleblower" protection, remember that the officer in question is not a US citizen, the ship is not a US ship, and even Carnival Corp is not a US corporation, so those US consumer protection laws don't necessarily apply.

 

OK, but I still wonder what happened to the whistleblower.

[richstowe]

I would categorize the cruise industry as shining stars when it comes to environmental compliance, compared to the maritime industry as a whole. In trade journals, you will find a conviction for pollution from a cargo ship nearly every other month, while it's been a while since I've seen one for a cruise line. Their compliance may not be completely altruistic, rather because everyone has a cell phone with a camera these days, and everyone knows they can get a reward for reporting violations, and therefore there are a whole lot more cameras on a cruise (and the passengers aren't depending on the ship for their livelihood) hence more possibility of reporting.

 

Again, what Princess did was wrong, what the Chief Engineer did was wrong, but the "root cause" is corporate mind set, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the article at the top of this thread, and those people have been fired from Princess, and the corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations, are all now felons.

In spite of my previous statement that " I believe environmentalism and cruising are mutually exclusive " , you bring up the important point that cruise ships are as good as it gets ocean vehicle-wise . Never ships are much more efficient and designed to be more earth friendly then their predecessors . In addition , cruising is so much more energy efficient then flying . Jetting around the world instead of taking those nasty polluting ships is misguided .

In the end we don't wish to live in a hole and eat roots . ( I don't anyways) We can and should urge continual progress .

[chengkp75]

OK, but I still wonder what happened to the whistleblower.

 

He more than likely moved on to another job at another line, mainly due to perceived or real peer pressure, more than corporate retaliation.

[chengkp75]

In spite of my previous statement that " I believe environmentalism and cruising are mutually exclusive " , you bring up the important point that cruise ships are as good as it gets ocean vehicle-wise . Never ships are much more efficient and designed to be more earth friendly then their predecessors . In addition , cruising is so much more energy efficient then flying . Jetting around the world instead of taking those nasty polluting ships is misguided .

In the end we don't wish to live in a hole and eat roots . ( I don't anyways) We can and should urge continual progress .

 

And shipping as a whole, whether crossing oceans, or pushing up and down rivers is proven to be the most efficient means of moving freight (whether that freight can talk back to the crew or not!) that there is. I have seen tremendous improvements in environmental compliance and efficiency over the last 40+ years at sea, and while most of them make my life harder at work, I applaud each and every one of them.

[chengkp75]

When the violation was first announced here a few months ago...

It was discussed for a few days, maybe a week.

We were then able to get back to important issues like butter...

 

Based on the amount of righteous indignation shown on the threads at the time, I thought the issue would have much more "legs" than it did, and it faded quite quickly, as most of these things tend to do, as it slips from the "news cycle" in a couple of days.

[Bill B]

Based on the amount of righteous indignation shown on the threads at the time, I thought the issue would have much more "legs" than it did, and it faded quite quickly, as most of these things tend to do, as it slips from the "news cycle" in a couple of days.

 

So true. You'll probably find half the people who swore at the time they would never cruise with Princess again, posting on 'roll calls' now. :rolleyes:

[Colo Cruiser]

Based on the amount of righteous indignation shown on the threads at the time, I thought the issue would have much more "legs" than it did, and it faded quite quickly, as most of these things tend to do, as it slips from the "news cycle" in a couple of days.

 

 

And those that say they are outraged and will leave Princess don't.

 

The 12 people here on CC will not have an affect.

 

Most passengers will never know a thing about it.

 

Carry on...........

[PescadoAmarillo]

Good grief, the things we have to go through to multiquote on Cruise Critic these days...

 

He more than likely moved on to another job at another line, mainly due to perceived or real peer pressure, more than corporate retaliation.

I heard this past week he was awarded $1million for sounding the alarm (By whom? The EPA? Thank God this happened when it did and not in the current environment.) and is now employed elsewhere. Apparently he was just out of school? Who knows the truth but this was the rumor I heard from someone who should know.

 

Besides shedding tears, are you going to boycott Princess/Carnival as a result of this? If not, why not?

Actually, this has caused me to re-think future plans. If it was up to only me, I would never step foot in a Princess ship again (recent major customer service issues haven't helped their cause) but DH is more forgiving, so I know I will and won't claim otherwise. But it was more than just a disappointment to learn of this. And I cannot work up even a little excitement about planning future cruises on Princess (which is causing great consternation in our house).

 

We have always been 100% honest in our dealings with Princess -no sneaking, no cheating, no breaking the rules OR recommendations (I always say that 12 years of Catholic education and 27 years of military experience left us incapable of doing any of these)- and it would have been nice to receive the same in return. But I know that's naive, and must remember that, regardless of how wonderful the crews and ship experiences are, they are simply the front line of a company which is out for share price and EPS above all else.

 

When the violation was first announced here a few months ago...

It was discussed for a few days, maybe a week.

We were then able to get back to important issues like butter...

I know, seriously. But most people don't care unless it affects them personally. I was (no surprise) on a ship when this happened and not following Cruise Critic, but it absolutely gutted me and definitely ruined the end of what had been a good season of cruising. And when I returned home just a couple of weeks later, I had to work just to find any mention of it on Cruise Critic. It was a big deal...for a week, as you said. And then nothing until this week (which is why I am commenting now). I guess I am guilty of holding grudges because this one is just not going away and my feelings haven't changed in the interim three months.

[Hlitner]

Chengp75, we have enjoyed your posts and insider knowledge for several years. And we did read your words about not condoning what happened. And we also agree that the industry should not be "convicted" for the sins of a few. But we must admit to being somewhat puzzled about how this internal "culture" could continue to exist in an era where cruise lines have adopted stringent anti-pollution policies and created "Environmental Officers" as a check and balance.

 

The more I read and think about what happened at Princess, the more I question the sincerity of the cruise industry...when it comes to pollution control. What keeps bothering me is that while I can understand 1 or 2 rotten apples in a crew (or organization) this dumping practice had to be known by more then a few of the crew. One would have to believe that most of the engineering department had some knowledge (or certainly heard rumors) and certainly the Captain should have been aware of what was happening on his ship. And crew members (including senior officers) do tend to move around to different vessels and take their knowledge to other vessels. I cannot help but believe that Princess is "dodging a bullet" by merely paying a fine (which does not come out of the pockets of anyone involved in this crime).

 

Hank