VitalAccurateThinking

Judge asks BP for their crystal ball

I am not sure what would constitute sufficient proof of safety improvements, but a judge asks for it anyway.

Here is the thing about chemical plant safety: there are few predictors of good safety performance other than a systematic approach to safety practices. The only thing that demonstrates improvements is the lack of injuries and catastrophic events. Even those are deceptive as some injuries are beyond the control of management. For instance, say a guy steps down off a normal step and breaks his ankle. That counts as a safety incident. How can that be prevented? In the case of these plaintiffs, it appears they are arguing safety is being nickled and dimed at BP. I wonder what level of spending would be sufficient to alleviate their concerns. Further, what measures fall under the diminishing returns principle?

Of course, I am not arguing that the BP disaster was unpreventable, because clearly I have argued the opposite. I am only arguing that we put aside hysterics and approach safety from a rational point of view. Only then can BP and the rest of the chemical industry operate safely and responsibly.

posted by Jim VAT @ 8:48 AM