4 ms·

I would gladly pay federal taxes if more government safety agencies put out high quality streaming content like the USCSB! That said, there is a facepalm momen

I would gladly pay federal taxes if more government safety agencies put out high quality streaming content like the USCSB! That said, there is a facepalm moment in each video when you realize the agency has no regulatory authority and can only make recommendations that may or may not translate into voluntary compliance actions.

icegreentea2 3y ago
It's powerful to have investigative powers not be hard-tied to regulatory powers (see NTSB / FAA... in fact, I believe that was the actual model chosen for USCSB). I'm totally not in the field, so I have no idea how often OSHA/EPA follow up on USCSB recommendations, and if OSHA and EPA's remit are sufficient to be able to enforce/mandate the majority of USCSB recommendations. For example in the video USCSB identifies that TPC had internally recommended and green-lit procedures for flushing out of use lines to prevent popcorn polymer formation, but did not actually implement the action. I know in medical device land, this type of thing (say someone internally recognizes a risk to device safety in the manufacturing process, a mitigation is accepted and greenlit, but never actually implemented) would be subject to both quality audits (so by someone checking up on your ISO status), and potentially as part of FDA follow up audits. I don't know what the situation in this field would be like.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  > It's powerful to have investigative powers not be hard-tied to regulatory powers The idea being that they'll have purer incentives to get the truth? And maybe get better cooperation? I'm sensing the outline of how this arrangement is "powerful", but having trouble with the full picture and details. And per your sibling comment, it might still be good to have a formal process for enforcers to have a look at their results...
  - ajdlinux 3y ago
    - they're able to investigate whether the regulators did their job properly in regulating, while being organisationally at least somewhat distant from the regulator they're looking at (obviously they tend to maintain close relationships with the appropriate regulators but at least they're not literally in the same building) - people will be more willing to talk to investigators if they know that their evidence won't be used against them in court or used for a licence suspension - you can grant non-regulatory investigators greater powers to compel testimony and documentary evidence, perhaps even if it's self-incriminating (I can't speak for the US but it's common here in Australia where we don't have a 5th Amendment entrenched guarantee), without running into as many ethical issues as when you give coercive information-gathering powers to regulators - you ban such compelled testimony from being used as evidence in court or in regulatory proceedings - you don't need as high a standard of proof to make an investigatory finding as if you're taking punitive action against a specific individual - the overall purpose of the investigation is aimed at systemic safety, rather than getting a successful prosecution None of this prevents the regulators from running a parallel investigation with the aim of regulatory punishment - and indeed, two sets of independent eyes on complex scenarios is good too.
    - solidsnack9000 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
sixothree 3y ago
Too bad they don’t hand out jail sentences. Kind of amazing considering the amazing negligence at play is some of these cases.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  That's not their job, and if it was they'd be far less effective at maintaining safety in chemical processes. Assigning blame usually results in more arse-covering and indirection than disaster reduction. See also: NTSB.
fdhfdjkfhdkj 3y ago
[dead]
totetsu 3y ago
I was really enjoying their videos around the end of 2016, and then something happened and it seemed like the money they requested was not going to be put in the government budget. I'm glad to see they are back doing this work.

icegreentea2 3y ago

It's powerful to have investigative powers not be hard-tied to regulatory powers (see NTSB / FAA... in fact, I believe that was the actual model chosen for USCSB). I'm totally not in the field, so I have no idea how often OSHA/EPA follow up on USCSB recommendations, and if OSHA and EPA's remit are sufficient to be able to enforce/mandate the majority of USCSB recommendations. For example in the video USCSB identifies that TPC had internally recommended and green-lit procedures for flushing out of use lines to prevent popcorn polymer formation, but did not actually implement the action. I know in medical device land, this type of thing (say someone internally recognizes a risk to device safety in the manufacturing process, a mitigation is accepted and greenlit, but never actually implemented) would be subject to both quality audits (so by someone checking up on your ISO status), and potentially as part of FDA follow up audits. I don't know what the situation in this field would be like.

andrewflnr 3y ago
> It's powerful to have investigative powers not be hard-tied to regulatory powers The idea being that they'll have purer incentives to get the truth? And maybe get better cooperation? I'm sensing the outline of how this arrangement is "powerful", but having trouble with the full picture and details. And per your sibling comment, it might still be good to have a formal process for enforcers to have a look at their results...
- ajdlinux 3y ago
  - they're able to investigate whether the regulators did their job properly in regulating, while being organisationally at least somewhat distant from the regulator they're looking at (obviously they tend to maintain close relationships with the appropriate regulators but at least they're not literally in the same building) - people will be more willing to talk to investigators if they know that their evidence won't be used against them in court or used for a licence suspension - you can grant non-regulatory investigators greater powers to compel testimony and documentary evidence, perhaps even if it's self-incriminating (I can't speak for the US but it's common here in Australia where we don't have a 5th Amendment entrenched guarantee), without running into as many ethical issues as when you give coercive information-gathering powers to regulators - you ban such compelled testimony from being used as evidence in court or in regulatory proceedings - you don't need as high a standard of proof to make an investigatory finding as if you're taking punitive action against a specific individual - the overall purpose of the investigation is aimed at systemic safety, rather than getting a successful prosecution None of this prevents the regulators from running a parallel investigation with the aim of regulatory punishment - and indeed, two sets of independent eyes on complex scenarios is good too.
  - solidsnack9000 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

sixothree 3y ago

Too bad they don’t hand out jail sentences. Kind of amazing considering the amazing negligence at play is some of these cases.

throwawaymobule 3y ago
That's not their job, and if it was they'd be far less effective at maintaining safety in chemical processes. Assigning blame usually results in more arse-covering and indirection than disaster reduction. See also: NTSB.

fdhfdjkfhdkj 3y ago

[dead]

totetsu 3y ago

I was really enjoying their videos around the end of 2016, and then something happened and it seemed like the money they requested was not going to be put in the government budget. I'm glad to see they are back doing this work.