Poor scores for Volendam

[mrswynn]

Am very disappointed to see a score of 90 for the Volendam on their recent inspection. After reading that the ship has been "refurbished" during recent wet dock, I expected better. Any recent passenger input would be greatly appreciated. We're booked for a 10 day on 11/6. HELP!!!!
Thank you SO much!

[Vanisle]

Where are the scores and what do they mean?
We will be on the Volendam on July 28
I did read a great review back before the boards were changed from someone that had just got off the ship.They seemed to Love it.

[tomc]

Actually, any score above an 80 is probably close to immaculate. I forget the URL, but if you check the CDC ship reports and see what the inspectors are looking for, you will see that the checklist is so remarkably severe that the best restaurant in your town would probably fail miserably. Don't worry about a 90. Don't even worry about the occasional 85. The inspectors take points off for a missing tile in the galley, for a drain hose that might not be easy to clean, etc.

[Vanisle]

Thanks Tom
I wasnt worried .
The ship would have to be rat infested or filling with water to ruin my time.
I have never cruised before and even though its only my parents with me as a chaperone I plan on having a wonderful time

[Orcrone]

I have to agree with Tomc. I don't know about the CDC, but I've looked at online reports of local restaurants. Many of the things where points are lost, although important, do not directly affect our safety.

I've seen points lost because of labelling of foods not meeting standards or a worker not being familiar with a safety procedure. I wouldn't let a score of 90 worry you. If there were serious issues the CDC can, and will, shut them down.

[tomc]

Coincidentally, HAL has its new "Signature of Excellence" program and I understand they have only the finest of rats. Not your common wharf trash, but specially imported from Ratterdam. They are very cultured and, occasionally, you will find the staff walking them on a leash at night after the passengers are in bed. All very high-class, you know.

[Vanisle]

Well if what I hear is true and most of the passengers are retired for the night by 11 , I may find myself out rat walking with the staff.

[dougnewmanatsea]

This is becoming a perpetual topic on these boards I see!

A VSP score of 90 is not poor. According to the CDC there are two kinds of scores: passing (86 or higher) and failing (85 or lower). There seems to be a misconception that just passing is not enough.

In real life, any passing score is much more than enough, and even if a ship fails an inspection here or there, it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. (Most ships do fail once in a while. No major cruise line has never had a ship fail a VSP inspection.) A VSP inspector who had previously worked as a health inspector on land once stated that he had never seen a restaurant on land that would not have vailed a VSP inspection miserably and looking at some of the inspection results I'm not at all surprised.

I've seen ships lose major points for, among other things:

flower bouquet stored in walk-in cooler (storing of food and non-food items together)
a burnt light bulb in the galley (lighting not bright enough)
loose caulking around tiles in galley/food prep areas (difficult-to-clean materials)
a broken appliance in the galley, even if not being used
And so on and so forth.

The plain fact is that these inspections are extremely difficult and while I think we can all be thankful for the peace of mind that ships are held up to such high standards, in some cases they are probably rather excessive.

As for the recent drydock - if anything, this will make the ship more like to get a lower score, as some bugs may not be worked out yet or minor items may be overlooked (see loose caulking example above, for instance).

Now granted I've not looked at this particular inspection report yet but I seriously doubt that there is anything on there that should be noticed. The bottom line is that 90 is a very good score, more than acceptable by any standards, and there's absolutely nothing to be disappointed or concerned about.

Anyhow, don't worry about the inspection, go and enjoy your cruise and have a great time!

[Southbound]

Tomc

Love your sense of humor. You're a riot & a half!


Host Doug

Your comments are accurate & right on target. Prior to sailing on the Volendam in March of last year, I checked the CDC rating for her most recent inspection (98) and the violations had nothing to do with safety or sanitary issues. We found her to be spotless and in tip-top shape, and are looking forward to sailing her again.

[RevNeal]

Here's a link to the CDC report on the Volendam for her May 14, 2004 surprise inspection, performed in Juneau.

CDC Volendam Report (http://www2.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/VSP_InspRpt.asp?txtShip=VOLENDAM&txtDate=5/14/2004)

Looking at the report, here are some observations.

FOR 34 DAYS SINCE 2/1/2004, POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION RECORDS INDICATED THAT THE EVAPORATORS WERE BEING OPERATED IN POLLUTED OR HARBOR AREAS.

:eek: For this they lost 5 whole points.

They lost another 2 points for:

THE HALOGEN ANALYZER-CHART RECORDER DAILY CALIBRATION WAS NOT RECORDED FOR NUMEROUS DAYS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION.

They lost a point for:

THE DAILY CALIBRATION OF THE HALOGEN ANALYZER-CHART RECORDERS WAS NOT RECORDED ON THE CHART OR IN A LOG BOOK.

And a final 2 points for:

THE ICE MACHINES IN PANTRIES SP 16, SP 22, AND SP 29 HAD LARGE GAPS BETWEEN THE BIN AND CUBER DUE TO PEELING SOFT SEALANT. LIGHT FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ICE BIN COULD BE SEEN ON THE BACK INTERIOR SEAM OF THE BIN. ONE OF THE ICE BINS HAD A 1/2 INCH GAP BETWEEN THE BIN AND CUBER.

SOFT PEELING SEALANT WAS NOTED ON THE BACK BLADE GUARD OF THE SLICER in LIDO PREPARATION and the COLD GALLEY.

THE WALK-IN AND UNDER-COUNTER REFRIGERATION UNITS IN THE COLD GALLEY WERE IN USE AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CORRECT TEMPERATURES. THE ENGINEER STATED THIS WAS DUE TO LEAKS IN THE REFRIGERATION LINES AND THAT THESE UNITS ARE SCHEDULED FOR REPAIR.

And there you have it.

If the CDC were to come into the kitchen in my rectory the score would be a minus 278. :D :eek: :p

[dam1050]

Mrswynn:
Don't fret over that report -- I was on the Volendam last month and it's in very good shape indeed.

If interested you can read my review at:

http://www.cruisecritic.com/memberreviews/memberreview.cfm?EntryID=4829

Enjoy your upcoming cruise!

Greg: Nice to see you back -- hope the fish were biting ... great new set of cruise critic boards for us, eh?

Dave

[RevNeal]

Greg: Nice to see you back -- hope the fish were biting ... great new set of cruise critic boards for us, eh?

Yes, they were ... though not as well as I would have liked. We had severe thunderstorms Monday night and the Mountain Fork river flooded to 10 feet above normal. We lost a trot line and a full day of fishing (since we couldn't get on the water until Wednesday). We got 8 LARGE cat fish and several bass, etc. Couldn't do any fly-fishing since the river's water was so cloudy.

We'll probably go back in July.

[Sage]

Revneal,

Thank you for posting the CDC findings. Hey, I bet that those high class rats that TomC spoke about would really enjoy those fine catfish you caught.:D

[Krazy Kruizers]

:) CDC report

So the Volendam lost 5 points just because they were making water when they weren't at sea?????

If true, that ridiculous!

:confused:

[iluvcruzin]

Coincidentally, HAL has its new "Signature of Excellence" program and I understand they have only the finest of rats. Not your common wharf trash, but specially imported from Ratterdam. They are very cultured and, occasionally, you will find the staff walking them on a leash at night after the passengers are in bed. All very high-class, you know.
Gee.. maybe they weren't paying attention to the signs...
http://community.webshots.com/s/image13/7/75/96/155077596MGlFKj_ph.jpg

[sail7seas]

A score of 90 is just fine.


I have a "thing about clean" and most would think my house/kitchen to be as clean as most anyone elses' and more so than many.

That being said, I'd be thrilled if USPH put my kitchen to the sort of inspection these ships undergo and it scored a 90. I do not think every knife would pass the "gunk" at the blade/handle test; my dishwasher may be running 3 degrees lower than prescribed; there might even be some speck of whatever under the blade of my power canopener. What does your cutting board look like? Any slits from previous cuttings? Have you had it sanded and smoothed to keep the surface immaculate? Do you think your kitchen /baths could get a 90?

[RevNeal]

So the Volendam lost 5 points just because they were making water when they weren't at sea?

Well, that kinda-sorta depends upon how one defines the phrase "making water." When my mother talks about "making water" she means peeing ... so, the first thing that came into my mind when I read your remark was of the crew peeing off the side of the ship. :D :eek: :D

As for your clear meaning ... yes, indeed, she lost 5 points for that. Probably, someone (new) forgot to turn off the evaporators when they entered port. Brilliantly STUPID.

As I said before, I'd hate to see the CDC report on the kitchen in my rectory. :eek:

[mrswynn]

I would like to thank each of you for responding to my concern. You've not only put my mind at ease, I thoroughly enjoyed reading each of your responses. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

[like2cruise]

ADONIA 5/12/2003 99
ADVENTURE OF THE SEAS 5/3/2004 95
AIDAAura 11/18/2003 99
AIDAvita 11/14/2002 98
ALBATROSS 9/14/2002 96
AMSTERDAM 5/23/2004 97
ARABELLA 1/18/2004 91
ASTOR 5/9/2003 79
ASUKA 12/30/2003 93
AURORA 1/31/2004 100
BRAEMAR 10/7/2002 95
BREMEN 9/2/2003 95
BRILLIANCE OF THE SEAS 3/29/2004 99
C. COLUMBUS 10/26/2002 95
CARIBBEAN EXPRESS 6/11/2004 91
CARIBBEAN PRINCESS 5/4/2004 100
CARNIVAL CONQUEST 5/23/2004 99
CARNIVAL DESTINY 1/19/2004 90
CARNIVAL GLORY 2/21/2004 100
CARNIVAL LEGEND 4/13/2004 99
CARNIVAL MIRACLE 3/6/2004 97
CARNIVAL PRIDE 2/1/2004 91
CARNIVAL SPIRIT 2/11/2004 91
CARNIVAL TRIUMPH 6/8/2004 95
CARNIVAL VICTORY 2/22/2004 99
CARONIA 1/22/2004 96
CELEBRATION 1/12/2004 93
CENTURY 12/16/2003 97
CLIPPER ADVENTURER 9/16/2003 99
CLIPPER ODYSSEY 7/22/2003 90
CLUB MED 2 4/12/2004 94
CONSTELLATION 11/21/2003 95
CORAL PRINCESS 2/21/2004 98
COSTA ATLANTICA 4/6/2004 98
COSTA CLASSICA 12/12/2003 99
COSTA MEDITERRANEA 4/4/2004 100
COSTA VICTORIA 4/2/2003 96
CRYSTAL HARMONY 12/10/2003 92
CRYSTAL SERENITY 5/2/2004 96
CRYSTAL SYMPHONY 3/22/2004 95
DAWN PRINCESS 12/15/2003 90
DEUTSCHLAND 1/5/2004 94
DIAMOND PRINCESS 4/17/2004 99
DISCOVERY SUN 2/10/2004 98
DISNEY MAGIC 6/5/2004 97
DISNEY WONDER 1/15/2004 94
ECSTASY 5/10/2004 89
ELATION 12/21/2003 94
EMPRESS OF THE NORTH 4/4/2004 91
EMPRESS OF THE SEAS 10/5/2003 92
ENCHANTED CAPRI 4/2/2003 81
ENCHANTMENT OF THE SEAS 1/10/2004 99
EUROPA 6/28/2003 97
EXPLORER OF THE SEAS 5/30/2004 94
FANTASY 5/27/2004 96
FASCINATION 12/19/2003 96
GALAXY 3/12/2004 94
GOLDEN PRINCESS 5/2/2004 97
GRAND PRINCESS 1/11/2004 97
GRANDE CARIBE 5/23/2004 92
GRANDE MARINER 5/25/2004 92
GRANDEUR OF THE SEAS 4/17/2004 96
HANSEATIC 10/7/2003 92
HOLIDAY 5/22/2004 86
HORIZON 3/26/2004 90
IMAGINATION 1/24/2004 92
INFINITY 5/18/2004 95
INSPIRATION 6/6/2004 97
ISLAND ADVENTURE 1/27/2004 90
ISLAND PRINCESS 12/16/2003 100
JUBILEE 12/14/2003 93
LE LEVANT 12/17/2003 98
LEGACY 3/13/2004 98
LEGEND OF THE SEAS 4/15/2004 93
LOGOS II 5/18/2003 79
MAASDAM 5/5/2004 89
MAJESTY OF THE SEAS 2/2/2004 96
MARINER OF THE SEAS 6/6/2004 100
MAXIM GORKIY 3/18/2004 87
MELODY 2/4/2003 96
MERCURY 1/19/2004 93
MILLENNIUM 3/25/2004 94
MILLENNIUM EXPRESS 2/10/2003 91
MINERVA II 4/8/2004 97
MIRAGE 9/3/2003 98
MONARCH OF THE SEAS 5/11/2004 94
MSC LIRICA 5/15/2004 95
MV DISCOVERY 3/18/2004 92
NANTUCKET CLIPPER 3/31/2004 95
NAUTILUS EXPLORER 7/12/2002 74
NAVIGATOR OF THE SEAS 1/21/2004 98
NIAGRA PRINCE 4/18/2004 92
NIPPON MARU 12/31/2003 97
NOORDAM 3/28/2004 93
NORWAY 5/8/2003 95
NORWEGIAN CROWN 4/9/2004 94
NORWEGIAN DAWN 2/18/2004 100
NORWEGIAN DREAM 2/8/2004 97
NORWEGIAN MAJESTY 4/17/2004 97
NORWEGIAN SEA 1/10/2004 96
NORWEGIAN SKY 4/5/2004 95
NORWEGIAN SPIRIT 5/22/2004 92
NORWEGIAN STAR 3/21/2004 99
NORWEGIAN SUN 1/25/2004 100
NORWEGIAN WIND 1/24/2004 99
OCEAN BREEZE 1/29/2003 93
OCEANA 3/23/2004 96
OLYMPIA VOYAGER 11/29/2003 97
OLYMPIC EXPLORER 11/26/2003 97
OOSTERDAM 12/11/2003 97
ORIANA 3/13/2004 100
ORION 5/24/2004 92
PACIFIC 2/21/2004 90
PACIFIC PRINCESS 5/17/2004 98
PACIFIC VENUS 6/19/2003 90
PALM BEACH PRINCESS 1/14/2004 94
PARADISE 6/10/2004 98
PRINSENDAM 1/20/2004 90
QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 4/25/2004 91
QUEEN MARY 2 3/16/2004 89
RADIANCE OF THE SEAS 12/9/2003 96
RADISSON DIAMOND 3/24/2004 95
REGAL EMPRESS 2/19/2004 91
REGAL PRINCESS 1/21/2004 95
REGATTA 3/15/2004 97
RHAPSODY OF THE SEAS 12/7/2003 99
ROTTERDAM 5/16/2004 95
ROYAL PRINCESS 3/25/2004 92
RYNDAM 3/13/2004 94
SAFARI QUEST 5/29/2004 87
SCOTIA PRINCE 8/1/2003 96
SEA BIRD 5/26/2004 94
SEA DREAM I 4/11/2004 96
SEA DREAM II 4/11/2004 94
SEA LION 5/25/2004 80
SEABOURN LEGEND 3/13/2004 97
SEABOURN PRIDE 1/3/2004 93
SEABOURN SPIRIT 8/9/2002 98
SENSATION 2/7/2004 93
SERENADE OF THE SEAS 2/22/2004 91
SEVEN SEAS MARINER 2/24/2004 99
SEVEN SEAS NAVIGATOR 3/30/2004 98
SEVEN SEAS VOYAGER 4/13/2004 100
SILVER CLOUD 3/18/2003 91
SILVER SHADOW 9/18/2002 99
SILVER WHISPER 1/19/2004 100
SILVER WIND 2/10/2004 95
SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS 2/20/2004 95
SPIRIT OF COLUMBIA 4/24/2004 88
SPIRIT OF ENDEAVOR 8/8/2002 87
SPIRIT OF OCEANUS 5/15/2004 93
SPLENDOUR OF THE SEAS 4/12/2004 90
ST. TROPEZ 2/20/2004 95
STAR PRINCESS 8/28/2003 100
STATENDAM 10/16/2003 99
SUMMIT 10/17/2003 98
SUN PRINCESS 3/10/2004 93
SUNBIRD 11/18/2003 92
SUNDREAM 12/20/2002 86
TEXAS TREASURE 1 1/10/2004 91
TEXAS TREASURE II 7/18/2003 94
THE TOPAZ 3/20/2004 94
THE WORLD 2/24/2004 92
UNIVERSE EXPLORER 4/26/2004 93
VEENDAM 1/17/2004 99
VISION OF THE SEAS 12/21/2003 91
VISTAMAR 2/20/2004 86
VOLENDAM 5/14/2004 90
VOYAGER OF THE SEAS 1/25/2004 97
WIND SPIRIT 3/13/2004 97
WIND SURF 3/21/2004 98
WORLD DISCOVERER 7/7/2002 89
YORKTOWN CLIPPER 5/29/2004 92
ZAANDAM 4/3/2004 98
ZENITH 2/19/2004 95
ZUIDERDAM 5/1/2004 98

[tomc]

For a moment, I thought that was your signature, except I have the sigs turned off. Was thinking, "Wow -- this person has been on a LOT of cruises and is a world-class show-off." Then I saw the CDC numbers.

[KAKcruiser]

I thought exactly the same thing -- wow, this person has really been on a lot of cruises! But, it was interesting seeing how the ships compare. It looks like most are above 90 and that seems pretty good.

[SeaDays]

We like a clean house, but based on the actual reports, we'd be lucky to rate a '2' if the CDC were to stop in!

[dougnewmanatsea]

A few interesting bits of information about VSP scores:

The dubious prize for worst score ever on a VSP inspection, according to the VSP database, went to the small German-market cruise ship VISTAMAR, marketed by Plantours & Partner (http://www.plantours-partner.de/) on January 29, 2000. She got a whopping 33 out of 100 points. According to the VSP:

"This was the second consecutive failure of a routine inspection by the VISTAMAR, and none of the deficiencies noted in the 1993 inspection had been addressed. We believe that a failure to address the sanitation deficiencies on this ship significantly increases the risk of a disease outbreak among both crew and passengers. CDC strongly recommends that the deficiencies documented during the January 2000 inspection be corrected prior to the VISTAMAR returning to a U.S. port. We expect all of the deficiencies to be addressed with special priority given to the critical areas related to: contamination and or lack of halogenation of the potable water systems; inadequate facilities for maintaining potentially hazardous food temperatures; inadequate facilities for cleaning and sanitizing of equipment. Failure to implement corrective action presents a threat of introduction of communicable diseases into the United States, and CDC will take whatever action deemed necessary, including detention of the ship, to prevent this threat."

And interestingly enough, no infestation (e.g. rodents or insects) was noted on this inspection. I guess that was about the only positive thing about it as I have never before read a VSP inspection with such a (by CDC standards) threatening statement at the end!

VISTAMAR's third inspection, in 2001, netted a score of 83 - meaning that at that time she had failed three of three inspections. However, despite the failing score, the CDC noted that "There have been many improvements made since the last US public health service inspection. The critical items noted in that inspection have been addressed." Luckily for VISTAMAR, her next three inspections (one each in 2002, 2003, and 2004) received passing scores, two scores of 90 and one 86.

Second prize for worst score goes to the Japanese NIPPON MARU, of Mitsui OSK Passenger Line (http://www.mopas.co.jp) which got a 36 on July 4, 1998. This ship has a particularly interesting story because she was designed entirely to Japanese regulations on sanitation, not American ones (almost all modern cruise ships are designed with the VSP guidelines in mind). On her first inspection (in 1995) she got a 48, the 1998 inspection was her second. After failing two inspections in a row, by incredible margins, her galleys etc. were modified to meet the VSP guidelines and she has passed no less than seven inspections since, scoring between a 96 and 99 on all of them.

The lowest score ever acheived by a major US-based cruise line was on Royal Caribbean's NORDIC EMPRESS (now EMPRESS OF THE SEAS) on July 13, 1990. She received a score of 70. Interestingly enough this was her second inspection and on her first inspection she received a 100 - only the second time any ship had ever received a perfect score. Since then she has been inspected 27 times and has failed only one other time, in 1992.

The lowest ever score for a HAL ship was an 81, which was achieved by NOORDAM in 1997 and twice by MAASDAM, in 1994 and again in 1997. It has now been over seven years since an HAL ship has failed a VSP inspection. Only once has an HAL ship acheived a perfect score, on Windstar's WIND SURF in 2003, but they have routinely gotten scores in the high 90s including scores of 99 on numerous occasions.

[RevNeal]

5/14/2004------90
10/18/2003-----97
5/16/2003------94
11/26/2002-----97
3/13/2002------99
10/6/2001------99
4/3/2001-------98
10/23/2000-----98
4/11/2000------94
1/5/2000-------96

The Volendam's average score, over her lifetime, has been 96.2. However, over half of her scores have been 97 or higher, and none have been lower than 90. There are two each inspection scores in the 99s, 98s, and 97s

Not bad at all. :)

[bellebaby]

I thought an improvement would be noted in subsequent inspections.

The Volendam's score in Novemeber declined, and is barely above passing. We are booked on the Volendam in May. I hope the situation is corrected by then. However, a corrective action plan has not been posted.

[lindleyjulie]

Bellebaby, no need to worry about The Volendam I did read a while back that CDC scores are not rally relevent to us and either something drastic has happened to her since we sailed her in october, or there is a fuss about nothing, she is a beautifull ship and her cleanliness is visable everywhere you look it would be impossibe for her to be dirty or have changed so much in eight weeks. :)

[tommy]

90,Not bad but I hope its not a continued trend in lowered standards Holland seems to be going with.It seems like less help,less service,and now less clean,is becoming acceptable. TOM

[bellebaby]

After a score of 90 earlier in the year, I thought the next score would show a marked improvement. Maybe in the mid-to upper 90's? However, the score declined to 87. A score of 85 is described as unacceptable/failing. It does seem as though "less clean" is now acceptable on HAL.

[RevNeal]

First of all, one must remember that the CDC inspections are exceedingly strict. My Mother -- who is a neat freak -- says that if the CDC were to inspect her kitchen (which is immaculate) she would receiving a failing grade. I HATE to think about how they would score MY kitchen.

Secondly, one should always check to see WHY the ship was marked off 13 points (out of a possible 100). You can do that at this webpage:

http://www2.cdc.gov/nceh/vsp/VSP_InspRpt1.asp?txtShip=VOLENDAM&txtDate=11%2F19%2F2004&show_part=dtl

The largest deduction was item 16:

Site:*MAIN GALLEY-HOT GALLEY

Deduction*Status:* Y

Violation:*
TOFU IN THE WALK-IN REFRIGERATOR WAS TESTED AT 53°F. THE THERMOMETER IN THIS UNIT NOTED 42°F. THE TOFU WAS DISCARDED.

Recommendation:*
7.3.5.3.1.1 Potentially hazardous food shall be maintained: (1) At 60°C (140°F) [roasts 54°C (130°F)] or above,; or (2) At 5°C (41°F) or less.

Site:* PROVISIONS-ROOM II

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
FOODS PLACED IN THIS UNIT THE NIGHT BEFORE FOR ISSUE WERE NOT AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURE. COOKED MEATBALLS WERE TESTED AT 50.7°F. CHEESE, MILK, AND YOGURT WERE TESTED AT 49°F. THE THERMOMETER IN THIS UNIT NOTED 50°F. THESE ITEMS WERE DISCARDED.

Recommendation:*
7.3.5.3.1.1 Potentially hazardous food shall be maintained: (1) At 60°C (140°F) [roasts 54°C (130°F)] or above,; or (2) At 5°C (41°F) or less.


For this they were marked off 5 points.
Thinking about what can be found in my fridge, right now, and at what temperatures, causes me to shudder.

The Volendam also received a 3 point deduction for the following item:

Site:* WHIRLPOOLS

Deduction*Status:* Y

Violation:*
FOR 52 DAYS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION, THE FREE BROMINE LEVELS IN THE PORTSIDE WHIRLPOOL WERE BELOW 4.0 PPM. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THIS WHIRLPOOL WAS CLOSED DURING THOSE TIMES. FOR 14 DAYS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION, THE FREE BROMINE LEVELS IN THE STARBOARD SIDE WHIRLPOOL WERE BELOW 4.0 PPM. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THIS WHIRLPOOL WAS CLOSED DURING THOSE TIMES.

Recommendation:*
6.3.2.1.1 Whirlpool spas shall maintain a free residual chlorine of >3.0 mg/L (ppm) and <10 mg/L (ppm), or a free residual bromine of >4.0 mg/L (ppm) and <10 mg/L (ppm).

Ever maintain a swimming pool? :D

A total of 2 points were counted off for all of the following:

Site:*LIDO BUFFET

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
A SERVING UTENSIL WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR EACH FOOD ITEM.

Recommendation:*
7.4.3.3.1 A food-dispensing utensil shall be available for each container displayed at a consumer self-service unit such as a buffet or salad bar.

Ooops ... sounds like some passenger walked off with a utensil or two just before the inspection!


Site:*LIDO ICE CREAM BAR

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THE TUBE WAS NOT IN PLACE AT THE IN USE DIPPER WELL. THE DIPPER WELL COULD ADEQUATELY FLUSH THE FOOD PARTICLES FROM THE SCOOPS.

Recommendation:*
7.3.3.4.2.4 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (4) In running water of sufficient velocity to flush particulates to the drain, if used with moist food such as ice cream or mashed potatoes.

So ... the dipper well didn't have water flowing! My goodness! That means I'll get some peach with my vanilla!


Site:*LIDO WOK STATION

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
SHORT HANDLED UTENILS WERE USED FOR DISPENSING THE INGREDIENTS. THE HANDLE OF THE SPOON IN THE GARLIC PAN WAS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE GARLIC.

Recommendation:*
7.3.3.4.2.1 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (1) In the food with their handles above the top of the food and the container. 7.3.3.4.2.2 During pauses in food preparation or dispensing, food preparation and dispensing utensils shall be stored: (2) In food that is not potentially hazardous with their handles above the top of the food within containers or equipment that can be closed, such as bins of sugar, flour, or cinnamon.

Garlic Alert ... Count Dracula, take note.

Site:*MAIN GALLEY

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
CONDENSATE WAS NOTED IN THE PROOFERS ABOVE AN UNPROTECTED TRAY OF DOUGH.

Recommendation:*
Provide adequate protection in this unit so that condensate does not drip on to foods. Ensure that adequate humidity levels are maintained so that excessive amounts of condensate are not allowed to accumulate.

Water could condense above some dough and fall on it ... giving you wet dough. Ever been in the Galley? You could EAT off the floor, walls, and ceiling. I would, without hesitation, drink water condensed on the ceiling over a tray of dough. The water was condensed, there, is probably cleaner than the water coming out of my tap right now.

Site:*MAIN GALLEY-DRY STORES ROOM

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
A RIP WAS NOTED ON A BAG OF RICE.

Recommendation:*
Ensure that food packaging is intact.

Dang it, Tri, you ripped that bag of rice against the perfectly clean metal edge of this preparation table just 10 seconds before the inspector saw it!

Site:*DININING ROOM STORES

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THE BOTTOM SHELF WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE DECK CAUSING FOOD ITEMS TO BE STORED LESS THAN 6 INCHES FROM THE DECK. THIS WAS CORRECTED DURING THE INSPECTION.

Recommendation:*
7.3.3.5.1 Food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; and (3) At least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the deck.

6 inches!!!!?? Yikes! I didn't know the ship had bugs that big that you had to keep stuff more than half a foot above the floor. What about "the 30 second rule!?"


Site:*CREW MESS

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*SERVING UTENSILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE APPLES.

Recommendation:*
7.4.3.3.1 A food-dispensing utensil shall be available for each container displayed at a consumer self-service unit such as a buffet or salad bar.

"Now, now, Maude, don't take that spoon out of the apple container!"
"But it's easier than getting a new spoon ... besides, the passengers do it all the time!"

Site:*LIDO BUFFET-GENERAL

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THERE WERE GAPS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS STATIONS AT THE BUFFET. FOODS WERE PLACE ALONG THESE GAPS EXPOSING THEM TO CONTAMINATION. SEVERAL CONDIMENTS AND FOOD ITEMS WERE PLACED OUT FOR SERVICE BUT WERE NOT PLACED UNDER THE SNEEZE GUARD. THESE ITEMS WERE COTTAGE CHEESE, HORSERADISH, MINT JELLY, TARTAR SAUCE, FRUIT JELLY, MAYONAISE, KETCHUP, AND MUSTARD.

Recommendation:*
7.3.3.6.1 Food on display shall be protected from contamination by the use of packaging; counter, service line, or salad bar food guards; display cases; or other effective means.

YIKES! :eek:
those packets of mustard were left exposed, without a sneeze guard!
ABANDON SHIP!

[RevNeal]

The CDC took off a whole point for all of the following:

Site:*MAIN GALLEY PORT LOCKER

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
EQUIPMENT WAS STORED ON SHELVES THAT WERE TOO CLOSE TO THE DECK, MAKING CLEANING OF THE DECK DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
Store items off the deck to facilitate cleaning of the deck.

Don't let the CDC near my house ... I got LOTS of stuff stored on the floor in my closet!

Site:*LIDO PREPARATION

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
GAPS WERE NOTED AROUND THE WATER SUPPLY LINES UNDER THE 3-COMPARTMENT SINK, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

Note ... they don't see it was dirty there, just that it was difficult to clean. Clearly, if it were dirty they would note that. Hence, this is simply the CDC being picky about something being difficult to clean leading to the possibility that someone might not clean the area.

Again, I'd hate the CDC to see how difficult it is to clean MY house! That's why I have a cleaning service come in and do it!

Site:*DOPHIN BAR

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THE DECK DRAIN WAS SOILED UNDER THE ICE BIN.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.2.1 Decks, bulkheads, deckheads, and attached equipment in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas, shall be cleaned as often as necessary.

Heaven forbid that the melted water off the ice might get a little dirty as it goes through the drain on the way to the recycle deck.

Site:*CREW MESS

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
A HOLE WAS NOTED WHERE A FASTENER WAS MISSING ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SOILED PASS-THROUGH, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

A fastener was missing. One lousy stinking fastener! Who took the fastener!

Site:*CREW MESS-LOCKER AD.11

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
ITEMS WERE STORED ON THE DECK, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
Store items off the deck to facilitate cleaning.

See note above about not letting the CDC look in my closets.

Site:*FOOD SERVICE GENERAL

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THE DECK THROUGHT THE GALLEY AREAS HAD ROUGH AND PITTED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT. THE EDGES OF THE DECK NEAR THE BULKHEAD HAD SEAMS AND CHIPPED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT. THE SCUPPERS THROUGHOUT THE GALLEY SPACES HAD ROUGH AND PITTED SURFACES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

That's interesting ... last time I took the galley tour the metal surfaces in the galley looked ULTRA clean and smooth. I wonder where they're talking about. I hope the CDC doesn't see the counter top in my house.

Site:*LIDO DISHWASH

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
THE DECK HAD ROUGH SURFACES, AND PITTED AREA, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

Note, they didn't say it was dirty, just that it would be difficult to keep clean. Since they don't note it as being dirty, that means that any wear they noticed isn't actually keeping it from being cleaned.

Site:*LIDO BUFFET GENERAL

Deduction*Status:*Y

Violation:*
OPEN AREAS AROUND THE SPRINKLER HEADS WERE NOTED IN THE DECKHEADS ABOVE THE BUFFET LINES, MAKING CLEANING DIFFICULT.

Recommendation:*
7.7.4.1.1 Decks, bulkheads, and deckheads in food preparation, warewashing, pantries, and storage areas shall be constructed and maintained for easy cleaning.

"Sprinkler heads"?? As in the fire suppression equipment!!! Just turn 'em on and they'll clean themselves!!!!! :D

I think my point is made ... the CDC is overly picky on many of these issues, and the few things that really matter were either corrected on site, or easy to fix (and probably already have been). Which, perchance, is why they didn't file an Action-Correction statement with the CDC.

[tommy]

Still with all that said I have never been on a cruise ship with that low of a rating,on any line. TOM

[bellebaby]

I agree that most of the deductions seem to be "picky". If this is the norm, then why did most of the other comparable ships (including HAL ships) not get deductions for the same type of violations?

And with all of that being said, I haven't sailed on a ship with a very low score, either. I hope corrections are in place.

[peaches from georgia]

With all due respect, Greg, I think your making light of these violations, in particular those concerning refrigeration, food and whirlpool temps, to be an entirely misplaced 'defense' of the Volendam's operations.

It matters not a whit to us what conditions are in your kitchen or your Mother's (other than we wouldn't want you getting sick), but it matters a whole lot to everyone who might cruise on the Volendam that disease is not spread because of unclean conditions or incorrect food preparations.

If these were violations of a ship from another cruiseline comments here would do a 180. Can't have it both ways, can we? ;)

[RevNeal]

Peaches ... my point is that most of these violations are (1) minor, and (2) not about to spread disease. I'm, mostly, making fun of those. I'm sure you don't care about the cleanliness of my house, or my mother's house ... the point in my remark was that MOST PEOPLE'S OWN HOMES WOULD FAIL. So ... to get all worked up over a low (but passing) score on a ship is a little bit uncalled for.

Taking a look at the deductions ... the one that they counted off 5 for is serious, I agree ... and it says that they discarded the tofu and, I would imagine, the fridge was properly adjusted by maintenance. Without that single deduction the ship would have scored a 92. Without the 3 point discount on the whirlpool having a slightly less than 4 parts per million bromine count ... a fault that would make nobody sick ... the ship would have scored a 95.

The other items vary from silly to inconsequential to easily correctable. The utensils issue, for instance. More than once I've seen passengers take the utensils with them from the self-serve part of the line. Or, worse, take the same pair and select from a bunch of different things, then set the utensil down at the end and move on, leaving the first one lacking. That's my guess as to what happened on that issue.

If these were violations of a ship from another cruiseline comments here would do a 180. Can't have it both ways, can we?

I don't know ... I doubt it. Last time I saw some people go ape over a low score on a Celebrity ship I read the report and started laughing at what it contained ... much like this one, mostly little stuff. Likewise, when the Noordam was reported as having crusty food bits on knives and forks in the main dining room I was horrified ... and the 15 point (automatic fail) deduction they received for that made perfect sense. So, no ... I'm not issuing a "defense" so much as I'm pointing out that most of what is being noted has very little to do with actual cleanliness and more to do with picky details. Every once-in-a-while a ship gets caught with details like this. I've seen other ships get cause similarly.

[RevNeal]

I want to pull Host Doug's July 1, 2004 remark forward to today so that we can be reminded of what he said then about this matter:

In real life, any passing score is much more than enough, and even if a ship fails an inspection here or there, it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. (Most ships do fail once in a while. No major cruise line has never had a ship fail a VSP inspection.) A VSP inspector who had previously worked as a health inspector on land once stated that he had never seen a restaurant on land that would not have vailed a VSP inspection miserably and looking at some of the inspection results I'm not at all surprised.

And, from tomc on June 25:

Actually, any score above an 80 is probably close to immaculate. I forget the URL, but if you check the CDC ship reports and see what the inspectors are looking for, you will see that the checklist is so remarkably severe that the best restaurant in your town would probably fail miserably. Don't worry about a 90. Don't even worry about the occasional 85. The inspectors take points off for a missing tile in the galley, for a drain hose that might not be easy to clean, etc.

I'm sorry if some people misunderstood my sarcastic levity on this matter, but having gone around on this subject many times I just couldn't help but find some of these point-deducting issues funny. And, frankly, I think both Host Doug and tomc's remarks are highly apropos.

[RevNeal]

All of this being said ... I'm not happy about the Volendam having an 87. This is the lowest score she's ever had.

By the way, I looked at some of the noted issues that didn't receive deductions, and some of those bother me more than those that they got deducted points on.

[bellebaby]

I chose the Volendam for our cruise to Alaska this year due to my previous positive experiences(2 times) on the Zuiderdam. And we all know there are many opinions regarding that ship!! I have cruised the Inside Passage twice before, but both times on Celebrity. I am taking my Mother both on her first cruise and her first time to Alaska. I want it to be perfect for her, so I thought a traditional cruise experience on a HAL ship that includes Glacier Bay was a great decision. I hope I made the right choice.

[Philip217]

Having been through dozens of these VSP Inspections; having taught VSP seminars for Cruise Ship Employees for the CDC for many years; and having attended many, many "refresher" courses on CDC Practices and Regulations, please let me add my observations.

1. Not a single restaurant (I`m not kidding, NOT ONE) in America could even come close to passing the CDC`s VSP inspection. Yet most of us who eat in those restaurants seem to be pretty healthy most of the time.

2. The CDC is understandably precise and detailed about cleanliness practices. As a "closed environment", it is easier to get sick on a ship than nearly any other place on earth. It is wonderful to have them watching the industry and keeping us honest. (Although I wonder why they do not also inspect land-based operations as well. Are land-based restaurants, and the people eating there, less important to the US Government?) And what about airplanes? Why do they let the USDA, with very obvious lower standards, inspect airplanes - where it is also very easy to get sick?

3. We are dealing with the US Government here, which means that a lot of nonsense gets mixed in with common sense. Until a few years ago, the CDC proclaimed that there was no proper way to store a wine glass on a ship. No matter how the glass was stored, hung, boxed, or shelved, the ship lost 5 points. The CDC also really likes a single manufacturer of juice dispensers for ships. They are very easy to inspect. If the cruise line chooses another brand, they will most likely lose 5 points - with no basis on cleanliness. There are many more examples.

4. High VSP scores do not necessarily coincide with healthy passengers. In most cases, ships with high CDC scores report the same number of sick passengers as ships with low CDC scores. The QE2 has a miserable history of Inspection scores, but I haven`t heard about any health problems there. The Sea Goddess ships also have had many rather serious problems (and failures) with VSP Inspections, but not with cleanliness or health. Low VSP scores do not necessarily coincide with unhealthy passengers. The Japanese Cruise ships always have problems with USPH inspections, but never any reports of any illness.

5. There are a lot of politics involved in ship inspections: Which country built the vessel, which flag is on the stern, nationality of officers, nationality of passengers, how often the ship visits a US Port, whether or not the cruise line paid to fly the inspectors over to the shipyard in Europe during construction. The list is very long.

6. There are many (myself included) who suspect that the CDC Inspectors sometimes (NOT ALWAYS) know - before the inspection - what the final inspection score will be.

[josee]

I have just returned from the Volendam on a 10 day cruise and found her to be well maintained. Everyday, you would see crew hard at work under the sun doing various kind of work such as on the rails of the sliding roof, painting, varnishing. It's unbeleivable how messy the outside Lido deck can become at 6pm after most passengers have retreived inside, leaving paper napkins (from drinks as all regular napkins are cloth), food, spurts of sunscreen on chairs.... Yet every morning, it would look great and clean.
Regarding the food buffet and the use of ustensils, we had no problem. My husband is deathly allergic to various food (seafood, fish, poultry, eggs, nuts and some legumes) We rarely go out as we fear another trip to a hospital. Staff were aware of this and not once did he have a reaction which can happen when someone uses the same fork to pick up tomatoe that was used for shrimps. One evening however, we noted that beef was grilled beside fish at the Lido and I think he ordered a separate steak.
I found that my rooms were always clean and well done and the public area also well maintained and clean.
The pools and whirpool were also regularly checked. They did close the whirlpool once to make adjustment, for an hour or so.
I know this is just one opinion and a very limited one as well. FYI
Josée

[mhshapiro]

It important to understand that CDC inspections are very thorough and complete for a reason. Cruise ships are "closed" environments. Disease can spread very rapidly in such environments, thus sanitation is more critical on a ship that it would be in a ordinary "open" environment.

[ekerr19]

I am not happy about that score either. We sail 3/20/05 and I hope conditions are much improved.

I don't think I've ever sailed on a ship with a score that low - not even on the old Noordam.

[RevNeal]

I don't think I've ever sailed on a ship with a score that low - not even on the old Noordam.

Looking at your cruise history, I note you were on the Noordam twice during the 2001 - 2002 period. I don't know when you were aboard her during this period, but during her inspection on January 20, 2002 she received a failing score of 82. She re-inspected at 97 on March 7, 2002, but there must be a window of time in there between December 18, 2000 (when she scored 95) and January 20, 2002, when the ship slipped down to the low 80s.

I'm not sure a passenger can ever tell what the ship would score while we're aboard unless they actually run the inspection just prior to, during, or soon after our cruises. I was aboard the Zaandam for her Fall 04 Panama Canal Cruise. When we got into Port Canaveral the Coast Guard and CDC inspectors came aboard and put the ship's crew through her paces while we were waiting to clear customs (we were delayed hours because two cabins failed to report and, for the longest time, couldn't be found). The Zaandam scored a 97, which made me feel good when I read it. Likewise, I was aboard the Volendam between the inspections of October 6, 2001 (when she scored a 99) and March 13, 2002 (when she also scored a 99), and I suppose it's safe to assume that the ship was doing well when I was aboard between those inspections. However, I was aboard the Maasdam just prior to her scoring an 87 in 1999 and, quite frankly, I couldn't have told you the difference between her condition then and when I was aboard her in 2000 and she was sporting a freshly inspected 96.

[bellebaby]

I understand inspection standards are much more stringent than we would expect at a restaurant in our hometown or our own home. My concern focuses on the fact that other ships with the same standards seem to be complying more successfully and the fact that the Volendam has now had two marginal scores. It appears that HAL needs to address the situation or we can assume it is acceptable.

I like HAL and want to continue sailing with the line. However, this makes me nervous.

[RevNeal]

I like HAL and want to continue sailing with the line. However, this makes me nervous.

I don't think that an 87 on a single ship constitutes grounds for one being nervous about sailing on a cruise line. Firstly, while an 87 would be "marginal" -- it's just one point above the minimum pass -- given the strict standards involved, I'm not so sure her prior score of 90 qualifies as "marginal."

Secondly, perhaps it would be a worthwhile exercise for us to take a look at the recent scores for the rest of the HAL fleet. Perhaps we can tell from that what the Cruise-line considers "acceptable."

Amsterdam: 95 9/12/04
Maasdam: 95 10/23/04
Oosterdam: 100 6/14/04
Prinsendam: 90 1/20/04
Rotterdam: 99 10/22/04
Ryndam: 95 on 10/30/04
Statendam: 99 on 7/25/04
Veendam: 94 on 11/13/04
Volendam: 87 11/19/04
Westerdam: 100 on 12/2/04
Zaandam: 97 on 10/16/04
Zuiderdam: 98 on 5/1/04 (after having scored 88 in 11/22/03)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but in my opinion a fleet-wide average of 96 is not indicative of a Cruise-line policy which finds low-but-passing scores "acceptable."

What about the Volendam's History? Amazingly for a ship her age (she's 4 years old), she has never failed inspection. Her average for the past 4 years is 95, and of her 11 inspections only 4 have been below the HAL fleet average; the rest have been average or better -- one 96, two 97s, two 98s, two 99s.

In short, I wouldn't be nervous. Fleet-wide, the latest inspections demonstrate that HAL is not experiencing a "filthy fleet syndrome," nor that low-passing scores are "acceptable." Likewise, the Volendam's history doesn't indicate that low scores are "acceptable" for her, either.

[Sage]

I agree with Josee. I was on the 12/6/04 sailing, and everything was immaculate. The inspections are very strick, and the ship passed. I would be much more concerned if the ship had failed the inspection. Of course that is only my humble opinion. We can't wait to sail on the Volendam again, and we are booked for 5/25/05 to Alaska.

[ekerr19]

Looking at your cruise history, I note you were on the Noordam twice during the 2001 - 2002 period. I don't know when you were aboard her during this period, but during her inspection on January 20, 2002 she received a failing score of 82. She re-inspected at 97 on March 7, 2002, but there must be a window of time in there between December 18, 2000 (when she scored 95) and January 20, 2002, when the ship slipped down to the low 80s.
Oh revneal! I should have known I couldn't get this past you! :D

We were on her (Noordam) December 18, 2002 to January 3, 2003 - after the failing score but we did hear about it from several crew members.

I'm not really that worried about the Volendam score, we'll let you know how we like the ship when we get back - I'm pretty excited!

Also, I think I have some of my dates wrong... I thought we were also on her in July 2000... :confused: I'll have to ask DH, my memory is going.

[bellebaby]

Hi, everyone

I am excited about the cruise. I researched various iteneraries,ships and cruise lines. The Volendam seems to have it all. I want my Mom to experience being pampered in a Category S w/access to the Neptune Lounge. She should really enjoy the experience.

I am also looking forward to experiencing Holland America's Alaska. From all I've heard it's the best.

Everyone who is sailing on the Volendam before May, would you let us know if everything is "ship shape"?

Thanks, revneal, for all of your observations.

[Peggy Sue]

We were on the same sailing as MrsWynn (the original poster) I was a bit concerned when I saw the score, but our cabin was clean and they were constantly cleaing rugs, rails, furniture. In fact we got several notices throughout the cruise that they would be coming into our cabin to clean rugs and wash down the deck.

the dining room was very clean and we had no problems with any food service.

The Lido..Now this depended upon what time of the day you hit the buffet lines. If you go at peak times the staff just can't keep up with the slobs! I'm always amazed how people don't pick up after themselves. But...during these peak times we saw staff members constantly wiping down surfaces, cleaning up dropped food etc. HAL doesn't have too many "self serve" areas..most are give you plate to the person behind the counter and they fill it.

Of course, we never saw the kitchen, so can't comment on how things looked back there.

I for one am glad these inspections take place. It is amazing to think a couple thousand people live on a floating hotel for several days and, for the most part, we all reamain healthy.

I liked that HAL had staff at the gang plank waiting to spray you with a hand cleaner when returning from port and appreciated that they had hand cleaner as you entered the dining room and lido.

You're traveling during the tail end of the cold and flu season (at least hear in the north east) I'd be more concerned about fellow passengers coming on board sneezing and coughing ... I'd avoid them and head for the hand cleaner!! :o I know at work I turn and walk the other way when I hear someone sneeze!!;)

Have a wonderful cruie!!!!

Peggy sue

Peggy Sue

[The Talented Mr Limpit]

Thank-You all for your imput and replies.
We board the Volendam in just 10 days and can't wait!
Your insight has been very helpful.