Princesss fined $40 million for pollution

[Syracusefan44]

IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.

I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office.

 

These quotes from the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the case indicate that the upper management knew what was going on and Princess did this to avoid having to pay disposal fees in port which further proves that upper management knew what was going on and they did it to make more money.

 

“The pollution in this case was the result of more than just bad actors on one ship,” said Assistant Attorney General Cruden. “It reflects very poorly on Princess’s culture and management. This is a company that knew better and should have done better. Hopefully the outcome of this case has the potential not just to chart a new course for this company, but for other companies as well.”

 

"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."

 

The corporate executives and supervisors involved in this scheme should also have been charged since corporations do not commit crimes people do.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Syracusefan44

[sunsetbeachgal]

Very disappointing indeed

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[tjwa]

IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.

I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office.

 

'spin' from a cheerleader.:eek:

[Kenosha Cruiser]

I have always been a loyal Princess cruiser, this is really disturbing actually disgusting! I thought Princess was a first rate cruise company. To dump waste into our oceans to save a few bucks? What were they thinking? They deserve the fine and I hope the big wigs who tried to cover this up do get fired. Now I wonder if Princess will pass off this $40 million dollar fine on future cruise passengers, this would really be unacceptable. Come on Princess, clean up your act if you don't want to lose loyal passengers!

[johhnnyt]

Seven felony charges of polluting the seas and trying to cover it up, and pay a record $40 million criminal penalty.

 

http://fortune.com/2016/12/01/carnivals-princess-cruises-pollution/

[SteelMagnolia9]

The one and only reason corporations commit crimes like this is greed. They are more concerned about making money than the environment.

 

Yes, and they continued to do it for many years. Seven criminal felony violations and a $40 million fine. The U.S. Justice Department stated it was the largest-ever criminal penalty involving deliberate vessel pollution. This is staggering. They are a major polluter of our natural resources.

 

For those who have bookings on this line, are you going to cancel or if that is not possible at this time (due to full payment made, flights booked, etc.) do you plan to not book with them in the future?

[Shogun]

Hi All,

 

$40,000 000 is a fair bit of money, but what about the folks who make a living

 

out of the seas around the UK, Princess needs to make some form penance to

 

them may be give a few million to fund anti pollution measures, or marine

 

conservation.

 

yours Shogun

[Charles4515]

IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.

 

I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office.

 

 

The corporate office is responsible because they should have been monitoring and inspecting the operations on the ships. Also many employees must have become aware of the practices since they occurred over a multi year period. You would expect turnover in crew positions and as most know, crew works contracts of months on and off. So it wouldn't the only one chief engineer. What happens often is that employees in a company are heavily pressured to cut costs by managers, and won't keep their jobs if they don't meet the goals, but are not told explicitly to commit a crime, but those managers have to know something corrupt is being done. They look the other way.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited December 1, 2016 by Charles4515

[rbt001]

IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.

I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office.

 

From one of the cited articles on this thread:

 

In the factual statement, Princess also admitted to the following:

 

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.

 

The pressure to KEEP COSTS IN LINE starts all the way at the top... above Princess Executives ... all the way to the parent company.

 

And while it is highly unlikely that ANYONE at a corporate level DIRECTLY or in any way indirectly ordered this criminal activity, that doesn't proclaim their innocence. The current CEO has apologize for "lack of oversight"

 

In line-item comparative financial analysis a keen eye would have spotted larger than normal variances for port-side oily waste disposal expenses between "compliant" ships and the "criminal" ships. Senior financial staff should have been asking: "What are these few ships doing to keep their cost so low?" -or- "Why is the cost so high on these ships?" At the very least, raising those questions should have prompted discussion and perhaps an investigation into operations.

 

As for jeopardizing Glacier Bay touring because of this conduct, I'll believe that IF there was going to be an impact, it would have been part of the settlement. Perhaps during the negotiations phase, restrictions to Glacier Bay and other environmentally sensitive areas was put on the table... swapped off by Princess for a larger fine.

 

That Jan Schwartz has prepared the video statement helps: it appears sincere and makes me believe that changes being made are more than just going through the motions because they have to.

 

Yet I am still sickened by this. While I'll believe the criminal conduct described halted some time ago, I just got off CB less than a month ago. And I've just been confirmed on two Alaska cruises this year. I pause, knowing that being a passenger contributes to the waste which eventually can be illegally discharged. (Routine greywater overflows to the bilge tanks were pumped back into greywater tanks for illegal discharge.)

 

To me, this incident is the second worst environmental and criminal conspiracy-- only surpassed by Volkswagen's diesel discharge cheating. I personally would be happy if VW was fined in to oblivion, causing the dissolution of the company. I don't wish that same fate on Princess.

 

However, maybe it's time for a wake-up call at Carnival Corp where the mantra is cut, cut, cut to bring profit to the bottom line for shareholders.

 

Someone mentioned the recent Wells Fargo scandal. While it is another example of CORPORATE CRIME AND GREED, the victims are account holders who can be compensated financially. Whereas the environmental damage is not as easily corrected.

[rbt001]

I have always been a loyal Princess cruiser, this is really disturbing actually disgusting! I thought Princess was a first rate cruise company. To dump waste into our oceans to save a few bucks? What were they thinking? They deserve the fine and I hope the big wigs who tried to cover this up do get fired. Now I wonder if Princess will pass off this $40 million dollar fine on future cruise passengers, this would really be unacceptable. Come on Princess, clean up your act if you don't want to lose loyal passengers!

 

These criminal acts were motivated by financial gain. The benefactors were shareholders and corporate executives participating in incentive bonus plans tied to performance. Each party profited from this criminal activity even if they did not participate.

 

TAKE BACK the bonuses.

 

CUT current executive incentive plans.

 

REDUCE shareholder dividends.

 

The pain should be felt by these individuals rather than passengers past and present.

[Luvcrusn]

I'm just guessing, but wonder whose cruise fares will be increasing!:rolleyes:

[Murphey]

I want to know who was fired and what their punishment was. Will knowing that do any good? No. Will I feel better seeing exactly who and how many people got axed? Yes. I am so ashamed of Princess to whom I've been so loyal and to the senior officers who knew what was happening. Whether it was "corporate culture" or not, you should have known better.

[CruiserBruce]

IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.

I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office.

 

Are these officers red (rouge) because they got caught being rogue? :D;)

[txjim09]

But the video statement by Jan Swartz is an apology, (beginning at the 0:38 mark). No if, ands or buts. Not sure what difference it makes, but for people clamoring for an apology, it is out there.

 

I agree with you completely and believe that was sincere. Just paying the fine is NOT the apology, however, and it's STILL important that companies be made aware that many people take environmental concerns seriously.

[Braveheart11]

Omg!

[JimmyVWine]

These quotes from the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the case indicate that the upper management knew what was going on and Princess did this to avoid having to pay disposal fees in port which further proves that upper management knew what was going on and they did it to make more money.

 

“The pollution in this case was the result of more than just bad actors on one ship,” said Assistant Attorney General Cruden. “It reflects very poorly on Princess’s culture and management. This is a company that knew better and should have done better. Hopefully the outcome of this case has the potential not just to chart a new course for this company, but for other companies as well.”

 

"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."

 

The corporate executives and supervisors involved in this scheme should also have been charged since corporations do not commit crimes people do.

 

The phrase "reflects very poorly on Princess’s culture and management" does not mean that management knew. It means that these acts are evidence of ineffective management, which could mean a failure to properly train and supervise. In fact, that is the most common understanding of the phrase "reflects poorly on management". It means that the corporation failed to train, educate and supervise its employees. That is a significant failure of duty, but it is not the same thing as knowing about and being complicit in the acts themselves.

[txjim09]

Directly from President of Princess:

We are very sorry that this happened and have taken additional steps to ensure we meet or exceed all environmental requirements.

 

Sounds like an apology to me.

 

Shall we look at your original statement?

 

Pleading guilty and getting hit in the pocket for $40M is an apology. Trial is over. Time to move on.

 

A bit different that your statement above, no?

[chengkp75]

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.

[ebeluga]

This is sickening, with the cover-up and all. I was on the CB in June of the British Isles cruise.

 

Just cancelled my TA for 10/2017 and asked the agent to pass my comment to Corporate office of my disappointment of Princess polluting the British coastal waterway.

Edited December 1, 2016 by ebeluga

[JimmyVWine]

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.

 

The "big release" of waste oil was on August 23, 2013. The press release announcing the elevation of Jan Swartz to President was on 11/4/2013. Do you suppose that Carnival was aware of what lay in store and made "leadership changes" right from the start?

[JimmyVWine]

Just cancelled my TA for 10/2017 and asked the agent to pass my comment to Corporate office of my disappointment of Priness polluting the Bristish coastal waterway.

 

Princess' new promotional campaign may shift from "Come back new!" to "Come back. Please!"

[Colo Cruiser]

This is sickening, with the cover-up and all. I was on the CP in June of the British Isles cruise.

 

Just cancelled my TA for 10/2017 and asked the agent to pass my comment to Corporate office of my disappointment of Princess polluting the Bristish coastal waterway.

 

 

 

CP=Sea Princess

CB=Caribbean Princess.

[ginabab]

Chengkp75, thanks for your thoughtful reply

It's still very sad anyone or any seafaring team would think this is ok

Edited December 1, 2016 by ginabab

[ebeluga]

CP=Sea Princess

CB=Caribbean Princess.

 

Thanks Keith. Corrected.

[nigel_c]

$40 million is not enough. Willful pollution is unforgivable. Even though I have not sailed sailed Princess, I now never will.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app