British Petroleum's agreement that one of its divisions will plead guilty to a felony and pay a record fine under the federal Clean Air Act is sufficient punishment for risk management failures that contributed to the deadly 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery, the company said in a court filing Tuesday.
The company acknowledged that British Petroleum tried to bypass prosecution in light of its cooperation with a criminal probe of the blast, but the government insisted on a felony plea and a $50 million fine. A hearing on the proposed plea by British Petroleum Products North America, which includes the Texas City plant, is scheduled for Feb. 4 before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal.
Plaintiffs' lawyers who represent blast victims say the proposed punishment is too lenient for an explosion that killed 15 people and injured many more. British Petroleum countered Tuesday that such criticism "fails to recognize that the government took the harshest prosecutorial option available to it."
British Petroleum also reiterated that the company is spending $1 billion on upgrades and improvements at the plant. The company also has spent more than $1.6 billion settling blast-related lawsuits.
Three other workers have died in accidents at the plant since the March 2005 blast. The most recent was last week, when a man died after a metal lid flew off a water filtration vessel as it was being restarted.
"Although the recent fatality at the refinery is a powerful reminder that there is more to do, BP Products is committed to doing it," the company said in Tuesday's filing.
Federal prosecutors who forged the proposed plea deal also responded to the plaintiffs' criticism in a separate filing Tuesday, saying the fine was as high as it could be under the Clean Air Act.
"The government is not entitled to collect a larger fine amount simply because counsel for the victims claim that the defendant, or another entity that is not a defendant in this case, has the means or ability to pay it," the government said.
The dispute arose days before British Petroleum Products was scheduled to enter the guilty plea last November.
Source: Houston Chronicle | By KRISTEN HAYS
Blogalaxia:BP fotolog Technorati:BP Bitacoras:BPagregaX:BP
The company acknowledged that British Petroleum tried to bypass prosecution in light of its cooperation with a criminal probe of the blast, but the government insisted on a felony plea and a $50 million fine. A hearing on the proposed plea by British Petroleum Products North America, which includes the Texas City plant, is scheduled for Feb. 4 before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal.
Plaintiffs' lawyers who represent blast victims say the proposed punishment is too lenient for an explosion that killed 15 people and injured many more. British Petroleum countered Tuesday that such criticism "fails to recognize that the government took the harshest prosecutorial option available to it."
British Petroleum also reiterated that the company is spending $1 billion on upgrades and improvements at the plant. The company also has spent more than $1.6 billion settling blast-related lawsuits.
Three other workers have died in accidents at the plant since the March 2005 blast. The most recent was last week, when a man died after a metal lid flew off a water filtration vessel as it was being restarted.
"Although the recent fatality at the refinery is a powerful reminder that there is more to do, BP Products is committed to doing it," the company said in Tuesday's filing.
Federal prosecutors who forged the proposed plea deal also responded to the plaintiffs' criticism in a separate filing Tuesday, saying the fine was as high as it could be under the Clean Air Act.
"The government is not entitled to collect a larger fine amount simply because counsel for the victims claim that the defendant, or another entity that is not a defendant in this case, has the means or ability to pay it," the government said.
The dispute arose days before British Petroleum Products was scheduled to enter the guilty plea last November.
Judge Rosenthal postponed the plea hearing to allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to proffer their arguments and allow the company as well as prosecutors to respond.
The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the punishment was too light and the criminal activity that led to the blast wasn't isolated to the processing unit that exploded. They want Rosenthal to reject the proposed plea deal and impose a harsher punishment.
The proposed $50 million fine accounts for profits British Petroleum made from that unit or money the company saved by putting off upgrades and repairs.
The plaintiffs' lawyers say a disregard for safety in operations and handling of hazardous materials permeated the entire plant, so the fine should reflect overall profits — such as the $1 billion the refinery earned in 2004.
But the government said the criminal charge centers on violations of a risk management plan that led to the explosion in the unit that boosts octane in gasoline — not the entire plant.
The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the punishment was too light and the criminal activity that led to the blast wasn't isolated to the processing unit that exploded. They want Rosenthal to reject the proposed plea deal and impose a harsher punishment.
The proposed $50 million fine accounts for profits British Petroleum made from that unit or money the company saved by putting off upgrades and repairs.
The plaintiffs' lawyers say a disregard for safety in operations and handling of hazardous materials permeated the entire plant, so the fine should reflect overall profits — such as the $1 billion the refinery earned in 2004.
But the government said the criminal charge centers on violations of a risk management plan that led to the explosion in the unit that boosts octane in gasoline — not the entire plant.
Source: Houston Chronicle | By KRISTEN HAYS
Blogalaxia:BP fotolog Technorati:BP Bitacoras:BPagregaX:BP
No comments:
Post a Comment