A “toxic workplace culture” was one of several contributing factors that led to the implosion of the Titan submersible on its way to the Titanic, a report has said.

The US Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation (MBI) said in its report into Oceangate – the private company that owned the submersible – that “the loss of five lives was preventable”.

Titan operator Stockton Rush, who founded OceanGate; two members of a prominent Pakistani family, Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman; British adventurer Hamish Harding; and Titanic expert and the sub’s pilot, Paul-Henri Nargeolet, died on board.

On Tuesday, a 335-page report into the disaster went on to make 17 safety recommendations, which MBI chairman Jason Neubauer said will help prevent future tragedies.

“There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework,” he said in a statement.

The investigation’s report found that the submersible’s design, certification, maintenance and inspection process were all inadequate.

It also highlighted the fact that the company failed to look into known past problems with the hull, and that issues with the expedition were not monitored in real time and acted upon.

‘Intimidation tactics’

The report states that contributing factors to the disaster included OceanGate’s safety culture and operational practices being critically flawed, and an “ineffective whistleblower process” as part of the Seaman’s Protection Act – a US federal law designed to protect the rights of seamen.

The report adds that the firing of senior staff members and the looming threat of being fired were used to dissuade employees and contractors from expressing safety concerns.

It alleges: “For several years preceding the incident, OceanGate leveraged intimidation tactics, allowances for scientific operations, and the company’s favourable reputation to evade regulatory scrutiny.

“By strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges, OceanGate was ultimately able to operate Titan completely outside of the established deep-sea protocols, which had historically contributed to a strong safety record for commercial submersibles.”

Numerous OceanGate employees have come forward in the two years since the implosion to support those claims.

OceanGate suspended operations in July 2023 and has not commented on the MBI’s report.

Read more
What happened to the Titan?
Hopes incident won’t be end of deep sea exploration
Why billionaires are drawn to extreme tourism

The Titan sub went missing on its voyage to the wreck of the Titanic.

After five frantic days of searching, the wreckage was eventually found on the ocean floor roughly 500m from the sunken Titanic.

The MBI investigation was launched shortly after the disaster.

During two weeks of testimony in September 2024, the former OceanGate scientific director said the Titan malfunctioned during a dive just a few days before it imploded.

OceanGate’s former operations boss also told the panel the sub was a huge risk and the company was only focused on profit.

The board said one challenge of the investigation was that “significant amounts” of video footage evidence that had been captured by witnesses was not subject to its subpoena authority because the witnesses weren’t American citizens.

The scientist who first raised the alarm over microplastics in the world’s oceans has warned of a “David vs Goliath” battle between scientists and the plastics industry – as delegates begin to negotiate a global deal to reduce plastic pollution.

As United Nations talks begin this week, Professor Richard Thompson, head of the International Marine Litter unit at Plymouth University, said: “We’re seeing some coercion and some pressure being put by some of those that have got conflicts of interest that fear they stand to lose from the treaty progress.”

Representatives of 175 countries will meet in Switzerland today, for what should be a final round of negotiations over a legally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution.

The United Nations says while some countries are taking action on plastic, pollution is a global problem that needs a global agreement – but there is no official scientific presence at the talks.

Professor Thompson, who is attending the negotiations, said: “We’re only there as observers with a limited capacity to speak, whereas those from the industry have got a massive vested interest. They’re funded to be there. And it’s a bit of a David and Goliath battle.”

He continued: “It concerns me that I see some nations that are taking an increasingly short-sighted view, a view that’s perhaps driven by political cycles or short-run profits.

“You know, we need those leaders of countries, those negotiators, to take the long-term view to protect our planet for future generations.”

More than 430 million tonnes of plastic is produced each year.

But according to environmental charity WWF, around 11 million tonnes end up in the ocean each year as pollution.

And that’s expected to rise to 29 million tonnes a year by 2040.

There is wide consensus among countries that plastic pollution is a problem, but they are split over what to do about it.

The UK and more than 70 other nations that are part of a “High Ambition Coalition” want production and consumption of plastic reduced to sustainable levels.

But major oil producing nations and the chemical industry oppose any cuts.

The previous round of talks, in South Korea last year, collapsed in disagreement.

Professor Thompson is a founding member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

‘Strong treaty’ still possible

He said previous negotiations have been swamped by lobbyists from the chemicals industry putting pressure on delegates – and that if a good agreement cannot be achieved, leading countries should look to work outside the United Nations framework.

Professor Thompson said: “Given that there are more than 100 nations that are already backing the level of ambition that’s required, I think it could be possible to take this out of the UN process, to have a strong treaty that will function to end plastic pollution, to start with those 100 or 120 or so countries and to add others over time.

“I think there’ll be a realisation for those that aren’t on board initially, that if they don’t join forces with that coalition of the willing, they’re going to suffer in terms of their own international trade and that it’s better to be part of that strong treaty than not to be.”

Plastic is so widely used because it’s cheap, durable and can take many forms. So production of new plastic will only fall if better use can be made of the material that already exists.

The company Project Plan B is working with the charity The Salvation Army to recycle polyester textiles.

They’ve installed the first machine of its kind to turn the material into plastic pellets that can be used to make yarn for new clothes.

Read more from Sky News:
Government invests £63m in ‘sustainable’ jet fuel
Revealed: How much rubbish found on UK beaches

‘Terrible waste’

Just a handful of the pellets is enough to make a T-shirt.

Tim Cross, the director of Project Plan B, said the aim is to make the recycling process a closed loop, so as little as possible escapes as waste or pollution.

“This makes much better use of that plastic,” he said.

“If we’re wasting it and losing it into the environment, that’s a terrible waste, and we mustn’t allow that to happen.”

The UK produces around 700,000 tonnes of textile waste each year. Almost all is landfilled or incinerated.

A major problem is that most clothes are made of mixed materials, which makes it uneconomical to recycle them.

A polyester shirt may have nylon buttons and cotton thread.

But Project Plan B has been working with school uniform maker David Luke on a blazer made completely out of polyester and 100% recyclable.

“These garments normally last on children’s backs for a couple of years and used as goalposts a few times. And then what?” said Mr Cross.

“We wanted to make sure that we can fully recycle the blazer through the system that we’ve got here, so we had to completely redesign it.

“This is groundbreaking, changing the way that clothing can be made.

“When you’ve got something that is recycled and recyclable, you’ve got an instant solution.”

The Kremlin has urged caution in nuclear rhetoric, responding for the first time to US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US is repositioning nuclear submarines.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov played down the significance of Mr Trump’s comments, saying on Monday that US submarines are already on combat duty and that Moscow does not want to comment further.

Mr Trump said last Friday that he had ordered two submarines to be moved to “the appropriate regions” in response to remarks from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed powers.

“In this case, it is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that’s the first thing,” Mr Peskov told reporters.

“But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,” he said. “Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.”

Mr Peskov said Moscow did not view Mr Trump’s statement as an escalation in nuclear tension.

“We do not believe that we are talking about any escalation now. It is clear that very complex, very sensitive issues are being discussed, which, of course, are perceived very emotionally by many people,” he said.

He declined to answer directly whether Mr Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, was advised to tone down his online altercation with Mr Trump.

“Listen, in every country, members of the leadership… have different points of view on events that are taking place, different attitudes. There are people who are very, very tough-minded in the United States of America and in European countries, so this is always the case,” Mr Peskov said.

“But the main thing, of course, is the position of President (Vladimir) Putin. You know that in our country, foreign policy is formulated by the head of state, that is, President Putin.”

The spat between Mr Trump and Mr Medvedev flared up after the US president said he is reducing his 50-day deadline for Russia to end its war in Ukraine to less than two weeks.

Mr Medvedev posted on social media that Mr Trump was “playing the ultimatum game with Russia… Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war”.

The US president responded: “Tell Medvedev, the failed former Russian president who thinks he is still in power, to be careful what he says. He is entering very dangerous territory.”

Medvedev’s following post mentioned “Dead Hand,” the automatic nuclear retaliation system created during the Soviet era.

Ukraine and Russia continue attacks amid stalled talks

Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine continue exchanging strikes as peace talks to end the conflict remain stalled.

Ukraine’s security service said on Monday that its drones have attacked a Russian military airfield in Crimea, damaging several planes.

The Ukrainian military also claimed it had attacked a Russian fuel depot at Sochi airport the previous day. Russian officials reported on Sunday that an overnight Ukrainian drone attack on an oil depot near the Black Sea resort of Sochi caused a large fire, which prompted authorities to halt flights from the airport.

Ukraine said on Monday its forces neutralised 161 out of 162 Russian drones launched overnight.

As the US deadline for the Russian president to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine approaches, Mr Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Wikoff will be travelling to Moscow on Wednesday for talks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that Ukraine and Russia have agreed to exchange 1,200 prisoners following their latest round of negotiations in Istanbul in July.

Mr Zelensky also said that his office is in communication with US partners and that “pressure on Russia can truly work – in a way that makes them feel the consequences of prolonging the war”.