Princesss fined $40 million for pollution

[sfaaa]

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

 

Pretty easy to fix. All it takes is a big cruise sale and many cruisers will immediately burn up the phone or get on the internet to book their next dream cruise with Princess. Pollution? What pollution?

[LongtimecruiserfromCA]

I think this is a rather foolish and irresponsible statement. This goes to the very top of Carnival corp and the directors should be removed from their positions and stripped of all shares and entitlements from the company and banned from being in a position of leadership ever again. The chairman arison has to go over this. Ultimately something as serious as this could not happen unless people at the top knew about it.

 

Send them to jail...

[Cruise Junky]

How is that of much relevance?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Why don't you ask the poster that first said it rather than the ones who confirmed they were correct ?

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=51672855&postcount=106

 

And seeing as Swartz promotion, this incident and the moving of Princess to HAL all happened in 2013, I consider that pretty relevant. Eat a snickers

[LongtimecruiserfromCA]

There is knowing and "knowing". The fact that it went on for many years, that would have involved several different engineering officers, as well as the fact that it involved several ships, implies that it was a pretty standard practice. I would suspect that it was more of a don't ask don't tell. There is probably not a paper trail to senior corporate management, but clearly their systems avoided looking into the possibility.

 

Often with corporations there is the written rules and the unwritten rules. The fact that it was widespread means that it was clearly a widespread unwritten rule.

 

Now the two things I would look at is how the Engineering Officers were evaluated? How much was budget management part of their evaluation and how their budgets were broken out. Clearly waste disposal costs should be tracked separately and be reviewed if they are either too high or too low.

 

The second item is who does the environmental officer report to? Clearly if this was going on the environmental officer was not effective. Those positions should be under direct reporting of someone at the that reports directly to the President, with dotted line responsibility to the Captain of the individual ship.

 

Either way there will not be a consent decree in place for at least the next 5 years, with lots of outside review.

 

Makes you wonder why someone didn't notice no bilge water bills for the Caribbean.......

[Charles4515]

Why don't you ask the poster that first said it rather than the ones who confirmed they were correct ?

 

 

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=51672855&postcount=106

 

 

 

And seeing as Swartz promotion, this incident and the moving of Princess to HAL all happened in 2013, I consider that pretty relevant. Eat a snickers

 

 

 

That poster seems to be implying that it is relevant to someone booking a future HAL cruise but since the incident occurred before Princess was moved to HAL, HAL management is not responsible for the incident.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TriumphGuy]

I am so disappointed in Princess. Our payment for our April 2017 Hawaii cruise is due in February, seriously thinking about cancelling and going with another line.

[moki'smommy]

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.

 

And she "accepts full responsibility." The most overused line ever. What does that REALLY mean? Yes, there is the "buck stops here" logic, but in what way does this "accepting responsibility" have any effect on her? Is she going to lose her bonus this year because of the fine? It is a line intended to pacify the public!

 

It makes me sad to have contributed to the Princess bottom line. Not sure how I feel about cruising with them again. However, if you check out their "environmental report card," they are right in the mix with all other lines save one.

[bUU]

I am so disappointed in Princess. Our payment for our April 2017 Hawaii cruise is due in February, seriously thinking about cancelling and going with another line.

I suppose you would need to eliminate both Royal Caribbean and all its cruise lines, and Carnival and all its cruise lines.

[LongtimecruiserfromCA]

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.

 

You hit all the nails on their heads with your post. If the junior engineer would have reported it internally, nothing would have been done. Good for him for reporting it to someone who could take action.

[RDC1]

You hit all the nails on their heads with your post. If the junior engineer would have reported it internally, nothing would have been done. Good for him for reporting it to someone who could take action.

 

Unfortunately that junior engineer might have a hard time getting a good position to become a senior engineer. I would not be surprised if he is blacklisted (informally of course) at a few companies.

[triptolemus]

Unfortunately that junior engineer might have a hard time getting a good position to become a senior engineer. I would not be surprised if he is blacklisted (informally of course) at a few companies.

 

Indeed. Someone will make a compliance officer out of him instead. But, in the meantime, our recognizing his integrity does nothing to put food on the table.

Edited December 2, 2016 by triptolemus

[chengkp75]

Unfortunately that junior engineer might have a hard time getting a good position to become a senior engineer. I would not be surprised if he is blacklisted (informally of course) at a few companies.

 

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.

[RDC1]

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.

 

Good. I have seen other industries where such a report to a regulator, would pretty much lock someone out of the industry. A be nice to the people that work for you today, because you might be working for one of them at a different company in the future.

[Corfe Mixture]

Seems to me Princess have got off lightly.

 

The Deepwater Horizon accident released 780million litres (780,000 cubic metres) and cost BP around $15 billion in fines which is roughly $20 per litre.

 

This was a deliberate act, as opposed to an accident and involved a concious decision to release around 4,000 litres on perhaps 50 times per annum over 10 years which works out at around 2 million litres per ship, and would make the fine correct if only ONE ship was involved and all other factors were equal.

 

OK one could argue that was polluted water and not the 100% hydrocarbon BP released, but on the other hand Princess' action was, by all accounts, a deliberate and premeditated act which reportedly involved falsifying records. Furthermore, in the case of the incident 23 miles off the coast of England, the action was undertaken without any consideration whatsoever for the possibility of coastal pollution or the many beautiful birds which inhabit the coastal waters of England.

[kruisey]

Reading this for the first time .This little Island United Kingdom has been though many difficult times including war attacks now the latest modern monster Pollution close to its shores from the very cruise line I have ever traveled and admired for many years.I am totally shell shocked sitting here at this moment in the UK.:(

[caribill]

This might explain the CCL stock price drop yesterday.

 

I suspect that the increase in the cost of oil due to the supposed upcoming OPEC agreement on cutbacks is what is responsible for the stock price falling.

 

Higher oil prices = reduced profits for cruise lines

[caribill]

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.

 

Since the US investigated and imposed the fine (and I assume keeps the $$$ from the fine), can every other country that is a signatory to MARPOL also decide to impose their own fine on Princess?

[caribill]

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

 

 

Be sure to also avoid the other cruise lines that have been mentioned in this thread as having been fined for similar violation in the past.

[caribill]

Interesting calculation - remind our readers - how much was the recent On-board Service Charge increase and when was it?

 

Coincidence or what?;)

 

Since the increase in the service charge goes to food service personnel and cabin stewards I doubt there is any connection (unless you think waiters and cabin stewards are really paying the fine).

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

(As part of the plea deal, cruise ships from eight Carnival lines will remain under supervised probation for five years, subject to independent audits and monitoring.)

 

Lets hope they do enforce the rules.

 

yours Shogun

[caribill]

Yes, this was a serious violation of pollution standards and should not have occurred.

 

But let's not kid ourselves.

 

In the same way that every time you drive a car you are contributing to pollution, you also are contributing to pollution every time you fly to a cruise and go on a cruise. It is just that proper usage of fuel is considered acceptable even though the environment is adversely affected.

[Pushka]

There is accidental damage -e.g. Leak. There is negligent damage e.g. Failure to quickly repair the leak, but this act is pretty much the worst that could happen.

[Skai]

Yes, this was a serious violation of pollution standards and should not have occurred.

 

But let's not kid ourselves.

 

In the same way that every time you drive a car you are contributing to pollution, you also are contributing to pollution every time you fly to a cruise and go on a cruise. It is just that proper usage of fuel is considered acceptable even though the environment is adversely affected.

 

Not entirely.

 

A more fitting analogy would be: A person, after changing the oil in their vehicle, opting to dipose of it in a stormdrain rather than taking it to a facility where it can be properly processed.

 

The underlying morality of this crime is what is most disturbing. Princess touts themselves as environmentally friendly. They proudly declare it every time we as passengers assemble for the muster drill.

 

This revelation is a blatant betrayal of trust to both patrons and shareholders.

 

"Prefer a loss to a dishonest gain; the one brings pain at the moment, the other for all time."

 

-Chilon

[mrs and mrs]

Rewards always increase toward the top as the bottom line is reduced. The low level officers would not have been rewarded for the savings, but upper level officers and shore side personnel would be.

 

 

 

What about the guy who connects the hose to the slops barge (Shore side Personal)

HES BEEN STIFFED out of wages.

[Corfe Mixture]

There is accidental damage -e.g. Leak. There is negligent damage e.g. Failure to quickly repair the leak, but this act is pretty much the worst that could happen.

 

Exactly the point I was making when comparing the size of the fine with the $15 billion that BP were fined for the Deepwater Horizon ACCIDENT.

 

I rather suspect that the folks at Carnival Corporation were seriously worried in the lead up to agreeing the plea bargain.