The way I look at it, it's the industries themselves that need to take the lead on safety matters. And the only avenue available to really enforce compliance towards that goal is stiff, and I mean extremely stiff, penalties.
I'm not claiming to have an understanding of the specific industry, nor of the will within the industry to prevent such things from happening. Nor do I mean to imply that no such will exists. But I do understand cost/benefit analysis. And I also know that if the option is there to cut some corners then there will always be those that cut them. If you make the cost of cutting corners excessive enough then that effectively cancels out the option of doing so. The reason people cut corners to save resources, money.
To me increasing regulation just adds more compliance hoops, it increases operations costs (always). Regulation should be as simple as possible but very well defined. Standards are X, and the cost of not meeting those standards results in Y. If Y is excessive enough, they'll make damn sure they meet a solid X, if not better, when performing tasks and operations that can have a huge impact on the surrounding area.
Is that too simplistic? Am I being naive?