« Maintenance at Texas City | Main | CSB Releases Safety Video with Computer Animation; Valero Refinery Delaware City, Delaware »
November 02, 2006
Legal Woes and Root Cause Analysis - BP Texas City Explosion
When a major accident happens, the lawsuits can get nasty.
I ran across a document posted on the web that looks to be part of a lawsuit related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance or the Sherman Anti-Trust laws in the US. I don't know why individuals would be filing this suit, but lawyers might be able to explain it. The web site where the document is posted certainly does seem to focus on any negative information that can be found about BP. The document is posted at:
http://www.bpconcerns.com/Documents/CharlesHamelLetter2/tabid/76/Default.aspx
Why is a document posted at an "anti-BP" (my interpretation of the site) web site interesting?
1. When you read Attachment C you start to see the types of problems and expenses that can be generated by evan a simple request for documents that might occur because of a lawsuit after an accident. Here is just one item from the 20 item list:
"13. From 1998 to present, provide all emails warning of
problems on the Isomerization Unit from Petrospect
Inspection and Jacobs Engineering."
Imagine how hard it would be to make sure that you had collected all (every) e-mail that anyone had written that warned of "problems" from a "Petrospect Inspection" and from a contractor - Jacobs Engineering. And remember, that's just one of 20 information requests.
2. The document claims that "benchmarking" - and more specifically the Solomon Refinery Benchmarking Studies - is the root cause of the explosion at the BP Texas City Refinery.
The document points to the studies and management's actions and then blames the explosion on senior BP managers wanting to increase their pay by improving their results in the benchmarking studies. Thus "benchmarking" is the root cause of the explosion. That's the claim the letter at the web site makes.
WOW! And I thought my interpretation of the information released from the CSB was critical.
There is much that can be learned from the document - but let's just look at a few of the less obvious points:
1. You never know when someone will subpoena your e-mails!
2. One item that you should consider is that you are probably underestimating the costs of an accident. When you estimate the costs, don't forget the legal woes that can result from an accident.
3. Another unanticipated "cost" is the people who can loose their jobs over the residual blame that will, no doubt, ruin the reputations and careers of many. This started with those who were directly involved at the unit that exploded. But senior BP management is also finding out how far the blame can spread.
4. The PR nightmare after an accident is not a minor issue.
These less obvious costs of an accident aren't the primary reasons to prevent accidents, but they are issues that are real and often overlooked when considering the benefits of maintaining excellent performance.
A Note for TapRooT® Users:
As you know, the TapRooT® System isn't designed to place blame. Instead, it is designed to discover ways to improve performance. Therefore, the "root causes" hinted at (benchmarking and greed) in the document cited above aren't a part of the TapRooT® System.
Instead, TapRooT® would look at the company's standards, policies, and administrative controls related to specific causal factors that caused the accident. These "SPAC" should have been stringent enough to prevent the accident that occurred. If they weren't - that's a problem ... a near-root-cause in the TapRooT® System.
Or, if the SPAC were adequate, then they must not have been used (followed). That too is a problem ... another potential near-root-cause.
A more detailed analysis of BP's standards, policies, and administrative controls and the compliance with those SPAC is no doubt one of the things that the CSB has undertaken as part of their investigation and root cause analysis of the explosion at the refinery.
Everyone concerned about improving refinery safety - and process safety management - will be waiting for the final CSB investigation to get a more thorough understanding of the facts related to the failures that lead to this tragic explosion and fire and any failures in BP's implementation of the Process Safety Management regulation (a SPAC) that lead to the explosion. Until the complete report is released, we will be left wondering about the causes - the complete root cause analysis - of the explosion, fire, and resulting 15 deaths.
A Note for TapRooT® Summit Attendees:
Judge Andrew Napolitano will be one of the Keynote Speakers at the TapRooT® Summit. His talk is titled:
Accident Investigation Lessons from the Courtroom
This talk will provide you with even more ideas about the legal complications and liabilities possible when performing an investigation. If you know others who are interested in this topic, tell them about the Summit.
Posted by Mark at November 2, 2006 01:22 PM
Comments
Thought that this note may interest those with an eye for the legal aspects of an accident:
115 Settlements Approved in BP Texas City Refinery Litigation, According to the Buzbee Law Firm
GALVESTON, Texas, October 16 /PRNewswire/ --
The Buzbee Law Firm announces that all of the firm's clients with legal claims arising out of the catastrophic explosion at the BP Texas City refinery in March 2005 have approved settlements with BP and other defendants.
According to Tony Buzbee, managing partner of the Buzbee Law Firm, agreements were reached in 52 federal and 63 state cases just days after a federal judge ruled that plaintiffs' counsel could obtain deposition testimony from BP CEO Lord John Browne at company headquarters in London. BP representatives had asked to resume settlement negotiations after the court's ruling, Mr. Buzbee said.
The settlements bring to 159 the number of BP Texas City-related cases successfully resolved by the Buzbee Law Firm, most of them on behalf of injured refinery employees and contractors.
Mr. Buzbee stated, "Many of our clients' lives were forever changed by the explosion. They looked forward to their day in court, but these settlements enable them to move ahead with certainty and security. They have the satisfaction of having earned the full attention of Lord Browne and BP with this litigation."
The federal case is "Rodriguez v. BP Amoco Chemical Company, et al.," (C.A. No. G-05-543, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division). The state case is "Arenazas, et al. v. BP Products North America Inc., et al.," (Cause No. 05-CV-0337, 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas)."
Media Contact: Erin Powers, Powers MediaWorks LLC, for the Buzbee Law Firm, +1-281-362-1411.
Posted by: Mark at November 26, 2006 02:34 PM